It's supposed to be a conversation where we're trying to understand each other, no?

Why would you even look at that as something where "red herrings" could be introduced? — Terrapin Station

Why on earth would it not be a situation where red herrings can be introduced? It's exactly that kind of situation.

I've lost hope that I'll get any real answers from you about why you do this, or why you seem to think that it's acceptable, so I'll tell you what I think. I think that you can't bear to concede, so when backed into a corner, you change the subject instead. I put effort into arguing my side, asking the right questions, but it amounts to nothing, because of your eventual evasion before I can pin you down.

Why on earth would it not be a situation where red herrings can be introduced? It's exactly that kind of situation.

I've lost hope that I'll get any real answers from you about why you do this, or why you seem to think that it's acceptable, so I'll tell you what I think. I think that you can't bear to concede, so when backed into a corner, you change the subject instead. — S

Also re conceding. How is that something that is done in a conversation where people are trying to understand each other?

Conceding is something you do in a competition.

Also re conceding. How is that something that is done in a conversation where people are trying to understand each other?

Conceding is something you do in a competition. — Terrapin Station

I can see through what you're doing, you know. You're suggesting a bad motive on my part. It's not a competition, but there's more to this than simply trying to understand each other. In any disagreement, there is often a right and a wrong. Is it that you can't bear to be in the wrong? Conceding is the right and proper thing to do when you realise you're mistaken in some respect in a debate, discussion, conversation, or whatever you want to call this. But you can't concede if you avoid the subject altogether, even when it is repeatedly brought to your attention. And that's the real problem: evasion. Deliberate evasion. And it's even worse when you make excuses.

You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations. Re an issue like this, this isn't something I'm going to think that I'm wrong about. I didn't just arrive at my view, and I'm not unfamiliar with the alternate views being expressed. So debating with me about it, as if I'm going to change my mind, because you're going to present something to me that I hadn't thought about before, is probably going to be futile. I like having conversations, though. I like explaining my views and why they are what they are, in contradistinction to other views, and I enjoy people give their views in their own words, plus I think it's worthwhile for both parties to once again examine how their views work in context of contrary views.

You're interested in debating. I'm interested in having conversations. — Terrapin Station

No, it doesn't matter what you call it, the problem remains, and you ought to take responsibility for your part in the breakdown of the conversation we were having.

Do you see nothing unethical about suddenly changing the subject when things seemed to be coming together, and then adamantly refusing to return to what we were talking about?

Re an issue like this, this isn't something I'm going to think that I'm wrong about. — Terrapin Station

Big surprise there. That answers my question.

So debating with me about it, as if I'm going to change my mind, because you're going to present something to me that I hadn't thought about before, is probably going to be futile. — Terrapin Station

That's not even the problem! You are perfectly welcome to stick to your view, but when drawn into a line of questioning about that view, you bolt and change the subject. I can't get anywhere with you if you do that. There's no resolution. No conclusion. No outcome. Just a broken down discussion. You're like a slippery eel, wriggling out of my grasp.

You haven't as yet offered much of substance to back up your claims. If you would like to go into some depth we might be able to identify more nuanced sources of disagreement. As it stands what you've presented seems to be nothing more than a trivial strawman re the notion of correctness. Re language usage, it's understood that there's flexibility in terms of what's considered correct. The scope of the notion is defined by the degree of consensus regarding that to which it is applied and is informed by both empirical evidence regarding use as well as the views of recognized authorities (while being set in the context of the appropriate level of language community). That's the way things work. If you want to question the validity of that, fine, but there's no point questioning it on the basis of presuming that when we refer to 'correct' usage we are establishing an absolute binary of correct/incorrect with precise expressible boundaries. One grain is certainly not a heap and a million grains are. But that there is a question over whether a heap may apply to x number of grains does not mean we cannot correctly identify heaps. Or, even more jarring, that to claim we can entails a logical fallacy.

Concepts aren't correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

Well, it started with claims like this, where he makes a trivial point where he doesn't seem to consider the importance of context, which changes everything, and results in a completely different answer, the exact opposite of the above.

After a lengthy discussion, he then basically just abandoned that position and began asking distracting questions and bringing up vaguely related points.

Maybe he changed his mind, but didn't want to explicitly acknowledge that.

There is not a "correct meaning of the word 'chair.'" — Terrapin Station

He also said outlandish things like this, and still hasn't conceded, to my knowledge. If you said it out loud, people would laugh.

There is a correct meaning of the word "chair", and we all know what it is.

Terrapin Station has been refuted. He has lost the debate - sorry, "conversation". And that's that! :party:

On the idea of the correct-ness of concepts:

Concepts are nothing but half a relational proposition, from which a cognition becomes possible, the other half herein being beyond the scope. Whether or not a concept relates to its object is the purview of judgement. It follows that any error in cognition, or even if a cognition can be given, is the fault of judgement, and has nothing to do with whether or not the concept in use is correct in itself, but only has to do with whether or not it is itself the correct concept to use.

One can sleep in a chair, but the regular parent, given the general states-of-affairs in this world, isn’t likely to tell his kids it’s chairtime when the nightly sleep event comes around.

follows that any error in cognition, or even if a cognition can be given, is the fault of judgement, and has nothing to do with whether or not the concept in use is correct in itself, but only has to do with whether or not it is itself the correct concept to use. — Mww

This makes sense to me.

This makes sense to me. — Noah Te Stroete

Alright, then rephrase it in plain English.

The way I understand it is that concepts have meaning, and it’s not a matter of using a correct concept, but of using a concept correctly.

The way I understand it is that concepts have meaning, and it’s not a matter of using a correct concept, but of using a concept correctly. — Noah Te Stroete

I think that that's just saying something else based loosely on the gobbledygook that he produced, but it's good that you're able to make sense from nonsense.

I think that that's just saying something else based loosely on the gobbledygook that he produced, but it's good that you're able to make sense from nonsense. — S

:lol: Perhaps I’m projecting my mind into his.

Can you give us a bit more to chew on? A link even. It's got to be more interesting than what's come before. — Baden

One way to think about it is that concepts have purposes. They are motivated by something, necessitated by a convergence of issues and problems (like a horseshoe). We invent a horseshoe so as to stop the wearing down of the hoof due to our use of horses. If one starts thinking of horseshoes in terms of 'agreed upon terms' or 'individual uses', one abstracts from the whole point (read: purpose) of a horseshoe to begin with. It's the latter that grounds the former, and any debate that takes place wholly on the grounds of meaning in this narrow sense is misguided from the beginning.

With respect to 'correctness', that's also a poorly posed notion. Concepts are neither correct nor incorrect, but rather useful or not useful, felicitious or infelicitious. A horseshoe is neither correct nor incorrect, and it's simply bad grammar to consider it so, the kind of thing one corrects in grade school. They are however, more or less suited to their purpose, a better or worse response to the problem and constaints around keeping a horse's hoof from wearing out.

What's the grammar of a chair? Roughly, something to sit on, shaped for a human sized butt, mostly mobile but not always, useful for when you've been walking all day. A chair is roughly a response to the problem of human fatigue, our particular physiology, and our ability to create things (some other stuff too). The concept of a chair responds to all of this. We know, for the most part, what counts as a chair because we know all this. We understand how humans live. Not merely how they talk (the latter a subset of the former). But if it's framed at the question at the level of talk only, we lose everything important. Significance, not meaning.

I don't know. Why don't we try this?

On the idea of the concept of the idea of the correctness of concepts, not as concepts, but as the object of perception:

Cognition in itself, or rather the manifestation whereby a cognition translates through the mechanism of conceptualisation, to a subject, the content of a judgement, is not itself the result of the relationship between concept and subject, but rather falls under the purview of the very possibility of judgement itself. It therefore follows that correctness does not, and cannot, apply to the concept as a concept, but only to the concept as an object of perception.

Now, what did I mean by that?

Conceptualization is not a relationship between concept and subject, but it is the act of forming a mental model, the concept itself. The mental model or picture is not correct or incorrect in itself, but is correct or incorrect in its relation to the objects of perception or cognition. :lol:

With respect to 'correctness', that's also a poorly posed notion. Concepts are neither correct nor incorrect, but rather useful or not useful, felicitious or infelicitious — StreetlightX

Just a quick note with respect to this. I've clarified I'm not posing things that way and specifically mentioned felicity and appropriacy. @Noah Te Stroete made it clear too.

Communication fails when these concepts are used incorrectly. — Noah Te Stroete

There are correct uses of concepts determined by a community of users. — Noah Te Stroete

[his bolding]

To which came this type of thing:

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. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, I saw comments to that effect, just lending my agreement.

Conceptualization is not a relationship between concept and subject, but it is the act of forming a mental model, the concept itself. The mental model or picture is not correct or incorrect in itself, but is correct or incorrect in its relation to the objects of perception or cognition. :lol: — Noah Te Stroete

My head hurts, even from your watered down attempt at translating what I said. I can't say whether you're right or wrong in your translation, because I have no bloody idea what I originally wrote meant, but if it sounds good, I'll take the credit. :lol:

:up:

What's the grammar of a chair? Roughly, something to sit on, shaped for a human sized butt, mostly mobile but not always, useful for when you've been walking all day. A chair is roughly a response to the problem of human fatigue, our particular physiology, and our ability to create things. The concept of a chair responds to all of this. Was it an individual or a group which decided this? Who cares? An arbitrary, not very relevant question. — StreetlightX

You know what a chair is and can describe it thus because its meaning is grounded in a community of users without which your description would carry no weight. That is the relevant individual vs group distinction here and the one which renders Terrapin's argument absurd. How the concept came about is a different question, I'd say.

You do this all the time. Just as we're getting somewhere - Bam! - a red herring, and then there's no going back for you. — S

Although I've had some issues with your debate style in the past (mainly unnecessary rhetorical taunting/antagonizing), I have to confirm that this is the case here with TP as far as red herrings and evasion goes.

Here's the simplest way to put it:

"What's a chair? Is it that thing you sit on?"

"That's correct".

End of discussion.

Simplification is good. :up:

That's actually probably all the refutation needed on Terrapin. Unless he can pull something else out, we should probably move on.

That's actually probably all the refutation needed on Terrapin. Unless he can pull something else out, we should probably move on. — Baden

What next? Tables?

:scream:

To which came this type of thing:

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. — Baden

The "demand" was in the context of folks demanding that I use particular pronouns to refer to them.

Do you see nothing unethical about suddenly changing the subject when things seemed to be coming together, and then adamantly refusing to return to what we were talking about? — S

I don't see anything unethical about any utterances. That doesn't mean that I like all utterances that people make in all contexts, or that I think all no utterances are a bad idea, but "unethical" is too strong in my opinion.

when drawn into a line of questioning about that view, — S

You were asking me to explain my view, to aid your understanding of it, and I didn't explain it to you?

You haven't as yet offered much of substance to back up your claims. — Baden

Which claim did you want more "substance" for?