No, there aren't. — Terrapin Station

I'm a fan of irony, so I'll just point out that your above statement is self-defeating, as it is itself an exception to the fallacy of appealing to the masses. But, like I said, you typically don't have a problem with the obvious exceptions, but with the more nuanced exceptions.

No, there aren't. — Terrapin Station

That means that there are. It seems that everyone agrees.

That means that there are. — hairy belly

Topsy turvy day?

I'll just point out that your above statement is self-defeating, as it is itself an exception to the fallacy of appealing to the masses — S

What's the appeal to the masses there?

I didn't say anything like "There are no exceptions to it by popular view, so that's correct."

I knew you'd agree.

It seems to me that you model reality differently than I, which can lead to problems with philosophical discussions. However, I’m not sure that your model is any better or worse than mine. Jus’ sayin’.

Pee Wee, is that you ?

Oh, I'm sorry you're hurt. Don't worry, everything's well be fine.

What's the appeal to the masses there? — Terrapin Station

You seem very confused. Do you know the meaning of the word "exception"?

You seem very confused. Do you know the meaning of the word "exception"? — S

Oy vey.

Your nose is beautiful.

Oy vey. — Terrapin Station

You're a strange one. I say that there are plenty of exceptions to the fallacy - which there are. There are way more exceptions to fallacy than instances of it - that's just common sense. You then reply by saying no, there aren't. I then point out that even that reply is itself an exception. You then bizarrely ask me what the appeal to the masses is there, even though I'm saying precisely the opposite to that.

Although your nose is indeed beautiful. I'll give you that.

Are you a computer programmer? You should learn code if you’re not. I never met someone so logical linguistically.

I think @Terrapin Station's idea is cute. Now I get to say it's just an argumentum ad populum to claim that Donald Trump is president of the US. Like, that's just conformity, dude.

You can use language any way you want, but since the purpose of language is to communicate, it's in your best interest to use it the way other people use it. Unless, of course, you do not want to communicate but to obfuscate.

Words do have true and false meanings but only in relation to certain language.

The correct meaning of the word "chair" in English language is "a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs" and this is determined by consensus (clearly not the case of argumentum ad populum.)

I think Terrapin Station's idea is cute. Now I get to say it's just an argumentum ad populum to claim that Donald Trump is president of the US. Like, that's just conformity, dude. — Baden

Again, you can say that it's a fact that a consensus thinks about him that way, but that's all that the consensus there accomplishes.

No, we can say it is a fact that he is President. A social fact to be precise, which comes into being through consensus. And calling that an argumentum ad populum is silly, frankly, and you should know better.

No, we can say it is a fact that he is President. — Baden

Which simply refers to it being a fact that a consensus thinks about him that way. It's just like you could say, "A consensus thinks about this concept that way." And if you said that and you were accurate about it, that would certainly be the case. That would be a fact.

That doesn't make that concept with those associations correct somehow. It's just a fact (and correct) that a consensus thinks about it that way.

As I wrote way back in the thread: " 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)." It's correct that it's the consensus opinion. The consensus opinion isn't correct just because it's a consensus opinion, however. In other words, the scope of "correct" is when we're referring to the consensus opinion being whatever it is. A claim about what the consensus opinion is can be correct. The scope of "correct" doesn't extend outside of that, so that the consensus opinion makes anything correct in general.

The correct meaning of the word "chair" in English language is "a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs" and this is determined by consensus (clearly not the case of argumentum ad populum.) — Magnus Anderson

Exactly. @Terrapin Station, can't you see the absurdity in making such a charge in these cases? Does it not seem intuitively wrong to you to think of that as somehow fallacious? It is nothing like the obvious wrongness you can easily detect in typical examples of the fallacy. It only has a superficial similarity to genuine examples of the fallacy. Statements like that quoted above have little do with logic altogether, it really is a matter of common sense, and readily agreeable to most. Let it go. You've been stuck on this point for a long time now. I would like to see you concede and move past it.

It's been explained to you multiple times that correct usage is determined by consensus for certain facts, such as social facts, and for definitions of words etc. You can continue to deny that, but your denial is empty as language will continue to function that way and we will continue to make judgements that way.

(And if there is any utility at all in looking at things your way, please let me know as I don't see it.)

It's been explained to you multiple times that correct usage is determined by consensus for certain facts, such as social facts, and for definitions of words etc. — Baden

Folks can explain that all they want. They're wrong. The only thing determined by consensus is consensus. Consensus makes nothing correct with respect to a scope other than what the consensus happens to think/say/etc.

I've explained many times that you're wrong about this. I doubt you'll stop claiming things that are wrong, however.

Exactly. Terrapin Station, can't you see the absurdity in making such a charge in these cases? — S

There is not a "correct meaning of the word 'chair.'" We can say, "It's correct that most people use the term this way," but that's all that a consensus tells us. It's not correct to match what most people do, or incorrect to not match that.

The only time the consensus opinion is relevant and not fallacious is when we want to know what the consensus opinion happens to be — Terrapin Station

And that's precisely what we want to know when it comes to the correct meaning of words.

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

That's absurd, and that it is absurd can be put to a test of sorts. A good test to see whether you're talking bollocks is to put it to ordinary people. If they laugh in disbelief and exclaim something along the lines of, "Of course there is! It's what you sit on, silly!", then that's a pretty good indication that you've gone badly wrong somewhere. And that's exactly the sort of reaction you'd get.

I've explained many times that you're wrong about this. I doubt you'll stop claiming things that are wrong, however. — Terrapin Station

But I agreed with everything you said. I just used words in a non-consensus way so that they meant their opposites. (See, I did it again).

And that's precisely what we want to know when it comes to the correct meaning of words. — Magnus Anderson

You might want to know consensus usage, but that doesn't make the consensus usage correct. It just makes it (correct that it's) the consensus usage.

So, in other words, if you use "chair" to refer to bicycles, you're not incorrect, but if you say, "Most people use 'chair' to refer to bicycles," you are incorrect .

But I agreed with everything you said. I just used words in a non-consensus way so that they meant their opposites. (See, I did it again). — Baden

That's a nice little reductio ad absurdum there. Terrapin Station is usually quite logical, so I'm surprised he can't detect the clear fault in his position you've highlighted here.

That's a good test if your goal is conformism.

But I agreed with everything you said. I just used words in a non-consensus way so that they meant their opposites. — Baden

Then for once you're right.