As are horseshoes, which are not made any which way. — StreetlightX

Whether someone calls it a "horseshoe" or not depends on their individual concept. It's simply a matter of what they personally require to call something a "horseshoe."

Whether someone calls it a "horseshoe" or not depends on their individual concept. It's simply a matter of what they personally require to call something a "horseshoe." — Terrapin Station

So people need not agree on what a horseshoe is? There is no collective knowledge? I’m sure I misunderstand you, and that’s not what you’re saying.

As long as what to you is my face I call a horseshoe, then my concept about what a horseshoe is is correct?

As long as what to you is my face I call a horseshoe, then my concept about what a horseshoe is is correct? — Noah Te Stroete

Concepts aren't correct or incorrect.

So people need not agree on what a horseshoe is? There is no collective knowledge? I’m sure I misunderstand you, and that’s not what you’re saying — Noah Te Stroete

Clearly, people sometimes have very different concepts in mind by the same term. And sometimes they have very different concepts in mind and it's not obvious to us, too.

Sometimes when it's clear that they have very different concepts in mind by the same term, we can translate their concept into terms that make sense to us and that seem to be coherent and consistent with how they're using the term. Sometimes we can't do that. (For the latter, see me and most continental philosophy and most "mysticist"/"esotericist" etc. philosophy for example.)

I would say that there's no collective knowledge. But knowledge certainly has social influences and assistance.

You actually make sense here, but I must politely disagree. Concepts have generally true or false values, otherwise communication would fail more often than it does.

You actually make sense here — Noah Te Stroete

Haha--as if that's surprising.

Concepts have generally true or false values, otherwise communication would fail more often than it does. — Noah Te Stroete

Obviously I don't agree with that (and not just because I think that communication often does fail--hence your surprise that I make sense), but it's a huge thing to get into different theories about how communication works.

Obviously I don't agree with that (and not just because I think that communication often does fail--hence your surprise that I make sense), but it's a huge thing to get into different theories about how communication works. — Terrapin Station

This is now far afield of the OP, but I will just say that the vast majority of concepts have generally true or false values. Communication fails when one or both interlocutors are wrong about concepts used. ‘Cat’, ‘chair’, ‘normative ethics’, ‘sun’, ‘Dow Jones Industrials Index’ all have correct usages. Communication fails when these concepts are used incorrectly.

This is now far afield of the OP, but I will just say that the vast majority of concepts have generally true or false values. Communication fails when one or both interlocutors are wrong about concepts used. ‘Cat’, ‘chair’, ‘normative ethics’, ‘sun’, ‘Dow Jones Industrials Index’ all have correct usages. Communication fails when these concepts are used incorrectly. — Noah Te Stroete

What do you take to be correct, just conformity to the norm?

What do you take to be correct, just conformity to the norm? — Terrapin Station

Community involvement, yes. Concepts can evolve or even change meaning or gain new meaning, but it ultimately depends on a community of users. Sometimes authorities such as experts determine correct usage, and sometimes the language game permits a community of users to use a concept in a unique and novel way.

Aside from pro-conformism sucking in my opinion :joke:, that's an argumentum ad populum fallacy then.

side from pro-conformism sucking in my opinion (:joke:), that's an argumentum ad populum fallacy then. — Terrapin Station

It’s not an argument. It’s a description.

It’s not an argument. It’s a description. — Noah Te Stroete

And there's nothing wrong with it.

It’s not an argument. It’s a description. — Noah Te Stroete

Claiming that something is correct because it's common is an argumentum ad populum.

Claiming that something is correct because it's common is an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station

I’m claiming that’s how it works in practice. That that is how it works in practice is a true description.

I’m claiming that’s how it works in practice. That that is how it works in practice is a true description. — Noah Te Stroete

What you said is that there are correct concepts.

There are correct uses of concepts determined by a community of users. If the users didn’t have a general correct use for concepts, then communication would be impossible. Communication, however, often succeeds. That is the argument.

Claiming that something is correct because it's common is an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station

This is a regularly occurring misunderstanding on your part. He did not commit the fallacy of appealing to the masses.

There are correct uses of concepts determined by a community of users. If the users didn’t have a general correct use for concepts, then communication would be impossible. — Noah Te Stroete

Saying "Communication is impossible unless such and such is the case" is different than saying that "such and such is correct."

But "communication is impossible unless a concept is used in a conformist way" isn't the case anyway.

Not that usage is the same as the semantic content of a concept anyway.

This is a regularly occurring misunderstanding on your part. He did not commit the fallacy of appealing to the masses. — S

He just said that what makes itcorrect is consensus usage. That's what the argumentum ad populum fallacy is. (And that's what it is in consensus usage, so if you believe that makes something correct, you'll not disagree.)

I don’t even know what we are arguing about anymore. This is way off topic, anyway, and I’m not even sure we would necessarily end up disagreeing with each other if this discussion continued, so I will just let it go.

He just said that what makes itcorrect is consensus usage. That's what the argumentum ad populum fallacy is. (And that's what it is in consensus usage, so if you believe that makes something correct, you'll not disagree.) — Terrapin Station

That's not what the fallacy is. That's more like a rough and overly simplistic explanation of the sort you'd give off the top of your head to someone new to philosophy. It works well enough in a large number of cases, but the obvious problem with that, however, are those cases which are in fact exceptions to the fallacy, but which you mistakenly lump in, I guess because it suits your argument.

the obvious problem with that, however, are those cases which are in fact exceptions to the fallacy — S

The problem is that there are no exceptions. The only time the consensus opinion is relevant and not fallacious is when we want to know what the consensus opinion happens to be, but that never makes the consensus opinion correct (by virtue of being the consensus opinion).

The problem is that there are no exceptions. The only time the consensus opinion is relevant and not fallacious is when we want to know what the consensus opinion happens to be, but that never makes the consensus opinion correct. — Terrapin Station

“Correct” as in that it works. A concept’s use is correct when used in a way that people understand one another.

“Correct” as in that it works. A concept’s use is correct when used in a way that people understand one another — Noah Te Stroete

A common definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."

How does "it works" connect to that definition?

Do you get my meaning? If so, then what’s the problem? If not, then I’m not using the term correctly, and that’s why this communication is failing. Hence, my point still stands.

Do you get my meaning? If so, then what’s the problem? — Noah Te Stroete

Your "meaning," I'd say--sure. I can understand unusual usages of terms. Which is my point. You don't have to use the term the same way I do, or the same way that most people do, in order for others to understand you.

The problem is that there are no exceptions. The only time the consensus opinion is relevant and not fallacious is when we want to know what the consensus opinion happens to be, but that never makes the consensus opinion correct (by virtue of being the consensus opinion). — Terrapin Station

It does if that's the criterion for correctness. And of course there are exceptions. There are plenty of exceptions. You have persistent trouble in identifying the more nuanced exceptions, and to be honest, I don't actually think that you want to learn your error and stop making the same mistake over and again. You've always struck me as someone steadfastly committed to a position or line of argument, and sometimes that's a problem.

Because ey don't identify as being male or female, and, so, it is not correct to subjectify them as either. — thewonder

Holy moley--"correct" again.

There is no "correct" when it comes to this stuff.

I demand that you let me use language however I want to. I don't identify as a conformist to what others want.

Yes, which was my point about using concepts in unique and novel ways in certain language games. However, that was one concept. It didn’t appear that you misunderstood other concepts I was using in this discussion, no?

It does if that's the criterion for correctness. And of course there are exceptions. There are plenty of exceptions. — S

No, there aren't.