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

In this case, and many others, they conform because it makes perfect sense. A chair is that thing that you sit on. That's the correct answer in the context. You wouldn't be gaining anything by deviating from the norm here. It would just make you look kind of silly.

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

I get the feeling you're fetishizing non-conformism to the extent its impairing your ability to accept facts so basic coherent comprehension is dependent on them. It's OK to conform sometimes, you know. It helps keep things sensible. You don't get brownie points just for holding a minority opinion.

Cross posted.

I get the feeling you're fetishizing non-conformism to the extent its impairing your ability to accept facts so basic coherent comprehension is dependent on them. It's OK to conform sometimes, you know. It helps keep things sensible. You don't get brownie points just for holding a minority opinion. — Baden

:up:

So, in other words, if you use "chair" to refer to bicycles, you're not incorrect. — Terrapin Station

Yes you are, because "chair" has a completely different meaning to bicycles. The common meaning is considered the standard for determining correctness by default. That's always the implicit context. You seem to think that you yourself are in charge of the implicit context, and of the default standard for determining correctness. You seem to think that you can change the default setting to your own idiosyncratic meaning on whim, without saying a word. But you're wrong about that. That's clearly not how things are, and not how they work, and the rest of us are keenly aware of this - it's pretty obvious when put to the test by trying to communicate in your way - which is why no one is agreeing with you. Baden has already effectively reduced your position to absurdity. You're just biting the bullet at this point. Consistency despite absurdity. Nothing to write home about.

Yes you are, because "chair" has a completely different meaning to bicycles. The common meaning is considered the standard for determining correctness by default. That's always the implicit context. You seem to think that you yourself are in charge of the implicit context, and of the default standard for determining correctness. You seem to think that you can change the default setting to your own idiosyncratic meaning on whim, without saying a word. But you're wrong. That's clearly not how things are, and not how they work, and the rest of us are keenly aware of this - it's pretty obvious when put to the test by trying to communicate in your way - which is why no one is agreeing with you. Baden has already effectively reduced your position to absurdity. You're just biting the bullet at this point. Consistency despite absurdity. Nothing to write home about. — S

:up:

Then for once you're right. — Terrapin Station

Funny that by your own logic I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting you as saying that I'm always right. (And it would be an argumentum ad populum to claim otherwise :party: ).

Funny that by your own logic I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting you as saying that I'm always right. — Baden

:wink:

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 . — Terrapin Station

If you use the word "chair" to refer to bicycles you are using it incorrectly. That's a fact.

What's important to understand is what it means to say that you're using the word "chair" incorrectly. What it means is that the manner in which you use the word "chair" does not correspond to the manner in which English speaking people do. That's all there is to it.

On the other hand, I have no idea what it means to say "If you use "chair" to refer to bicycles, you're not correct". That does not look like proper English to me.

Here's another amusing pickle Terrapin is in. He says:

if you say, "Most people use 'chair' to refer to bicycles," you are incorrect . — Terrapin Station

But again, by his own logic, you are not incorrect in using 'use' to mean 'don't use' (and it would be fallacious to claim otherwise) and he cannot know that that is not the usage you are employing, so his own statement above is incorrect. So what it means in practice to have no notion of correct usage is that you cannot make any claim about what anyone says without clarifying their meaning, and then clarifying the clarification, and so on ad infinitum. The upshot of no usage being correct is the impossibility of communication.

(And I'm all for problematising stuff, but in order to do so you need theory, and theory whose sophistication and strength is in proportion to the problematic nature of the claim, but all we've got here is the continued assertion of prima facie self-refutations and absurdities.)

You wouldn't be gaining anything by deviating from the norm here. — S

Since the purpose of language is to communicate, it makes no sense to deviate from the norm. By deviating from the norm, you make it difficult for others to understand you and for yourself to understand others.

It's not conformism if you want to be understood.

But again, by his own logic, you are not incorrect in using 'use' to mean 'don't use' (and it would be fallacious to claim otherwise) and he cannot know that that is not the usage you are employing, so his own statement above is incorrect. So what it means in practice to have no notion of correct usage is that you cannot make any claim about what anyone says without clarifying their meaning, and then clarifying the clarification, and so on ad infinitum. The upshot of no usage being correct is the impossibility of communication. — Baden

It should be pretty obvious that I don't think it makes communication impossible, right?

What it means is that the manner in which you use the word "chair" does not correspond to the manner in which English speaking people do. — Magnus Anderson

And norms/conventions are correct because?

It should be pretty obvious that I don't think it makes communication impossible, right? — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting this to mean that you think it makes communication impossible?

What's missing in the conversation here is any sense of the problems to which concepts respond. Concepts are addressed to problems to which they form a response. This thread started with a horseshoe - a horseshoe is designed to protect the hoof of a horse: it is a solution to a problem. And not just any solution will do. The 'two sides' here, one placing concepts in the purview of the individual, and the other in the social, are both entirely wrong. Both ought to think to ask the horse, which cares neither for what individuals nor societies think about horseshoes.

I wouldn't be incorrect in interpreting this to mean that you think it makes communication impossible? — Baden

There aren't correct/incorrect interpretations.

There aren't correct/incorrect interpretations. — Terrapin Station

I interpret that to mean "there are correct/incorrect interpretations". Good to be in agreement.

Or disagreement depending on the interpretation, right?

Instead of worrying about whether an interpretation is correct or not, why not worry about things like whether communication with someone is coherent, consistent, etc.?

By that I'm not incorrect in assuming you mean I am obviously right and you are obviously wrong?

I wish you'd answer my questions...

By that I'm not incorrect in assuming you mean I am obviously right and you are obviously wrong? — Baden

That's certainly not what I'd say. You seem unusually consumed with being right, correct, etc.

I could suggest a therapist.

It should be pretty obvious that I don't think it makes communication impossible, right? — Terrapin Station

Then you must use some other word than "correct" which has no practical difference in meaning.

That's the whole gist behind aesthetic objectivism, too. Some folks have a psychological need to be right/correct. Simply having the tastes they have isn't sufficient for them.

Instead of worrying about whether an interpretation is correct or not, why not worry about things like whether communication with someone is coherent, consistent, etc.? — Terrapin Station

Yes, but in order to be coherent/consistent etc there are certain presumptions to be made including that there is a standard of correctness that we can both agree on with regards to the meaning of words. Again, I'm all for problematising but this idea that the notion of correct usage inheres a logical fallacy doesn't stand up to scrutiny and just impedes communication. You need something more sophisticated than that.

You seem unusually consumed with being right, correct, etc.

I could suggest a therapist. — Terrapin Station

As long as it's not whoever you're using. :lol:

Then you must use some other word than "correct" which has no practical difference in meaning. — S

Communication simply depends on being able to understand others, which is a matter of being able to assign meanings to their utterances (say) in a manner that's coherent, consistent with their other past and future utterances, etc.

There's no need to bring the idea of "correct" into it.

Re the notion of definitions being correct or not, they're conventional or not. It's not incorrect to be unconventional. The conventional definition of "correct" isn't "conventional."

Yes, but in order to be coherent there are certain presumptions to be made including that there is a standard of correctness that we can both agree on with regards to the meaning of words. — Baden

That's not required at all, and your notion there is anti-instrumentalist.

Not that this is communication, but it's similar to, say, understanding planetary motion, with a stationary Earth, as containing epicycles. That's coherent, but it's not what's actually going on.

Communication simply depends on being able to understand others, which is a matter of being able to assign meanings to their utterances (say) in a manner that's coherent, consistent with their other past and future utterances, etc.

There's no need to bring the idea of "correct" into it.

Re the notion of definitions being correct or not, they're conventional or not. It's not incorrect to be conventional. The conventional definition of "correct" isn't "conventional." — Terrapin Station

I find it really silly that you don't want to use the word "correct" like the rest of us, even though it makes no practical difference. When you interpret the meaning of these words in sync with their intended meaning, and/or in accordance with the English language as per the relevant dictionary definition, that's what the rest of us call "correct". You can call it whatever you want, or nothing at all, but that would be silly and make no meaningful difference.

I find it really silly that you don't want to use the word "correct" like the rest of us, — S

Again, the conventional definition of "correct" is NOT "conventional."