Well true, it is a claim anyone can make. Like being reasonable. There is a fact of the matter of whether or not its actually true in both cases.
You asked me “what now” at the end of your case example. The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. That doesnt require an address of where the standard comes from, not in the case of reason, because reason is our most basic function of making sense of things. If you do not accept it, if logical fallicies seem fine to you for example, then no sensible or worthwhile discussion can be had. Conversation over. (“You” is intended in a general sense here, not “you” as in Terrapin).

The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. — DingoJones

The problem is that in the example at hand, both sides claim to be applying reason and claim that they are correct.

So if there's no other arbiter, we can't get beyond being at loggerheads like that.

The standards of reason arbitrate. Thats all you need. I tried to illustrate this with the “mile” example.
This isnt like morality, where sensical alternatives are available to any given moral view. Reason isnt like that, for what I would hope are obvious reasons ;)

The standards of reason arbitrate. — DingoJones

If we discover the standards of reasoning by reasoning, how does that help us in the example, because again, both sides claim to be reasoning, claim to be correct, etc.--they're just reaching very different conclusions about that with respect to the exact content at hand.

This isn't just a hypothetical example. I've had more than a handful of conversations over the years with people who claim to reason to "true contradictions" for example, where they seem to understand the issues involved, claim to not be equivocating, etc.

And I frequently run into conversations on this board where I think that people aren't thinking very reasonably, but they sure don't see it that way--they see it rather the opposite of me. For example, positing things that I believe are incoherent.

Re the mile example, you explained someone stipulating something by fiat, and then seemed to suggest that there's something normative about that. But multiple sides could do the same thing to different ends. One guy stipulates "This is a mile" and the other stipulates, "No,this is a mile."

“I like cauliflower” is not an opinion, it is a persuasion, grounded in feelings, and cannot be false.

“Califlower is a healthy vegetable” is not a persuasion, it is an opinion.

“Cauliflower is really good with salt, pepper and a ton of butter”, or “Califlower is awful compared to carrots” is not a conviction, it is a belief.

Reason has no say in the first, has the subject’s reason to say as arbiter in the second, and has all concerned subject’s reason as collective arbiter in the third.

“I like cauliflower” is not an opinion, it is a persuasion, grounded in feelings, and cannot be false. — Mww

That's one sense of the term "opinion."

True enough. I was going more for the sense of reason as arbiter than anything else.

I would call those examples, and ive seen exactly what your talking about between you and others, cases of reason being improperly applied. Is it so hard for you to believe that you are meeting the standards of reason and they are not? Maybe you think they are being incoherent because they are are in fact saying something incoherent? Not to get personal, but you have a particular way of interacting with people on here and that might be a factor as well. Plus, im sure you are the one making the mistake at times as well.
To the “mile” example, if someone or some persons invent the mile, then thats what it is. If someone else comes along and says “no, a mile is ten feet” then they are full of shit. As with morality, they might be able to provide alternate measurements and there my analogy fails becuase reason isnt like that but thankfully thats not what the analogy is meant to illistrate.
A note about coming to reason via reason. This is slightly different territory but I would put it “coming to reason by necessity of making sense of things” or something like that. Its a by-product of noticing that things have..well that they have reasons for the way they are and how they happen etc.
(Sorry for the clumsy use of language using “reason” there...not sure how else to put it)

To the “mile” example, if someone or some persons invent the mile, then thats what it is. If someone else comes along and says “no, a mile is ten feet” then they are full of shit. — DingoJones

What kind of ontology is that, though? Why would naming/defining rights fall on temporal priority, so that that act determines what something is in perpetuity? What if someone names/defines something on August 10, 1985, but no one except for that person and their best friend know about it, then someone else comes along on May 16, 1992, uses the same word, defines it differently, but it winds up being relatively well-publicized or given some official stamp of approval (like BIPM adoption). Do we have some means of changing what the word refers to if we learn what the guy in 1985 did--because ontologically, that's the correct definition/usage of the term (it turns out the BIPM is full of shit) since it was temporally prior?

Im not sure, I hadnt widened the scope to include those sorts of things. Its an analogy right, so its meant only to illustrate a specific point rather than perfectly map or correlate.
A seperate matter I think, which I will give some thought to.

Will have to respectfully disagree, hope someday to elevate to work in progress, but not there yet. Appreciate the kind words - thank you

So the standard isn't established by any consensus. What's it established by?

(Note that I'm not arguing pro consensuses or anything like that. The aim here is to get folks to think more about just what they're claiming re how this stuff works.) — Terrapin Station

What you're doing isn't very clever, in my opinion. It's just like a child who keeps asking why. The standard is just the standard. If you act in accordance with it, then you're reasonable, and if you act in violation if it, then you're unreasonable. That's it.

Well true, it is a claim anyone can make. Like being reasonable. There is a fact of the matter of whether or not its actually true in both cases.
You asked me “what now” at the end of your case example. The answer is “apply reason to see which person is correct.”. That doesnt require an address of where the standard comes from, not in the case of reason, because reason is our most basic function of making sense of things. If you do not accept it, if logical fallicies seem fine to you for example, then no sensible or worthwhile discussion can be had. Conversation over. (“You” is intended in a general sense here, not “you” as in Terrapin). — DingoJones

:up:

What you're doing isn't very clever, in my opinion. It's just like a child who keeps asking why. The standard is just the standard. If you act in accordance with it, then you're reasonable, and if you act in violation if it, then you're unreasonable. That's it. — S

lol at the idea that it has to remain a mystery and it's somehow off-limits to investigate it.

lol at the idea that it has to remain a mystery and it's somehow off-limits to investigate it. — Terrapin Station

No, it's not that, it's a fundamental disagreement about appropriate lines of enquiry. I'm a foundationalist, and as such, I think that some lines of enquiry are misguided. This is one such case. That's why I don't think that it's very clever to keep asking, "Oh yeah, and what establishes that?". As often seems to be the case with you, the problem is your question itself. It presupposes that there's a certain kind of answer.

Why is dog? What colour is Tuesday? Who invented rain?

No, it's not that, it's a fundamental disagreement about appropriate lines of enquiry. I'm a foundationalist, and as such, I think that some lines of enquiry are misguided. This is one such case. — S

So you don't think that if there's a standard, it has to be something, it has to have become the standard through some particular means, etc.? It's just unanalyzably present?

So you don't think that if there's a standard, it has to be something, it has to have become the standard through some particular means, etc.? It's just unanalyzably present? — Terrapin Station

You could take the three fundamental laws of logic as an example. You either get it or you don't. The vast majority of people simply get it. They get the law of noncontradiction. It works.

I think they learn by observing thats how everything works. I think thats the basis of it. Its fundamental to reality and is observable.

I think they learn by observing that's how everything works. I think that's the basis of it. It's fundamental to reality and is observable. — DingoJones

Indeed. It's ultimately untenable to argue against reason. Anyone who does so is using reason to argue against reason. And the alternative to that would obviously be unreasonable. It is one of the silliest positions in philosophy. There's a reason why we apply reason: it works, things make sense, and this is very evident.

I'll offer you an observation. You seem to require a formalism that others are not nearly as married to and it's a constant source of exasperation for you. It exhibits itself in your demands for proper grammar and spelling down to a wish that everyone be educated in every logical fallacy so that discussion can proceed in a certain orderly and predictable way. — Hanover

Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. :lol:

It isn't me that needs to change, it's everyone else. :lol:

I'd submit that a good part of philosophical debate consists of making the many errors you point out and in debating the significance of those errors to the overall discussion, as opposed to making them the focus of the debate. — Hanover

The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. Imagine if there was a discussion where everyone involved was skilled enough to avoid or keep to a bare minimum the occurrence of fallacies in their reasoning. Wouldn't that be so much more productive philosophically, where it's about the issue itself instead of our own reasoning and our own critical thinking skills?

I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light. — Hanover

I've already explicitly acknowledged that my example in the opening post was exaggerated and that it can be much more subtle in the discussions on here.

I don't demand an absolute meaning. But I do encourage common sense and self-awareness.

Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. — S

Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form.

The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. — S

While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there?

As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form. — Hanover

I don't think so. With respect to logic, it's designed to jettison bad arguments and limit unreasonable discussion. I use it with the intent to improve. You can't improve if you don't even take the first step of identifying faults. It would be somewhat absolutely wrong to take that as a message to just shut up and stop trying.

It's generous, just not in the nicey-nicey sense of offering a smile and a pat on the head for managing to tie your shoe laces up correctly, even though you forgot to get to dressed and turned up completely naked besides your shoes.

While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there? — Hanover

Yes, there are. But the way which I find the most pleasing is to skin it alive whilst it squeals and writhes around in great pain.

As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." — Hanover

Yes! Heaven here I come.

I've learned recently that cats are actually flerkens (movie reference). I do agree with the OP that philosophy arguments on here tend to go down the semantic rabbit hole and end up with people talking past one another. Or definitions are shifted so that arguments can be won.

As an example from a while back, someone posted that color irrealism is a challenge to direct realism. The argument went on for a while and devolved into direct realism meaning how things appear to us, which is not what realism means, but that's how it got redefined.

Or when someone argues that there are no extra-mental moral truths. As if you can even speak of something extra-mental. Poke—>@Terrapin Station

Is that to say there is nothing extra-mental to speak of?

Is that to say there is nothing extra-mental to speak of? — Mww

Not at all. It’s just impossible to speak of it.

Then what am I speaking about when I tell you the burger I just ate was maybe the worst excuse for a burger I ever had?

The material and the ideal are inextricably intertwined. You are speaking of a material burger in a sense, but you can’t extricate it from your perception of it. What the extra-mental “burger” is like cannot be spoken of. We have no conception of it.

Then how did I come to call it a burger? And to qualify its awfulness?

What you call a “burger” is your perception of the matter consisting of what you ate. What it is like without a mind perceiving it cannot be conceived.