Again, the conventional definition of "correct" is NOT "conventional." — Terrapin Station
"1. free from error; in accordance with fact or truth".
If your interpretation matches the intended meaning (a matter if fact or truth with which you would be in accordance with) then that's a successful match and you would have understood me correctly, not misunderstood me, meaning an erroneous interpretation.
I shouldn't even have to explain that, as it's obvious. You're not a child, so why are you acting like one? — S
You're not understanding something I've explained many times:
It's correct that the definition of "correct" above is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth."
It's correct that that's a conventional definition.
That doesn't imply that it's correct to define "correct" as "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station
It's a scope issue. The distinction is similar to the bound/unbound distinction.
In the one case, we're making a claim about what happens to be the case re popular usage, re what a dictionary says, etc. "Correct" is bound to those claims qua those claims--that is, what popular usage is, what the dictionary says, etc.
In the other case, it's an attempt to make an unbound claim--"It's not correct to define 'correct' as 'a type of puppy'" is not saying, "That's not what the dictionary says" or "That's not the conventional definition."
And in the unbound claim, there's an implication that one SHOULD follow conventions. That it's right to follow conventions. — Terrapin Station
This is a simple matter of whether you're willing to use a word, "correct", like the rest of us, in a situation which makes sense, or whether you're going to continue to resist on no reasonable basis, given that your arguments miss the point. — S
And if you're not willing, you're incorrect? — Terrapin Station
And if you're not willing, you're incorrect? — Terrapin Station
In a sense, yes. Like Baden said, we're not dealing in absolutes. So, under the working assumption that willingness in this context indicates correctness, then obviously you would indeed be incorrect if you're not willing. — S
But then you're not just saying that the dictionary or conventional definition of "correct" is "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." — Terrapin Station
After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention. — Terrapin Station
If course I'm not just saying that. Haven't you been listening? I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell us that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S
Can't you successfully communicate with someone using the word "correct" to refer to "a puppy" once they tell you that? — Terrapin Station
And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc. — Terrapin Station
Yes, but so what? I never at any point said that conventional usage is the only possible standard of correctness. I very clearly said that it is the default standard. — S
So "correct" has no normative or prescriptive weight in your usage here? — Terrapin Station
I'm saying that when that's what's meant, and when you interpret that meaning accordingly, then that's correct, that's successful communication. Why the hell is that so difficult for you to a) understand, and b) acknowledge? You haven't given any sensible response to that. — S
What do you mean by that? Why wouldn't it? — S
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? — Terrapin Station
I merely explained what it means to say that someone is using words incorrectly. — Magnus Anderson
Are you insane? I'm not failing to understand your irrelevant points. It is correct per my usage, and per common usage, and per a matching interpretation from you. Any mismatched interpretation is incorrect. That's how the rest of us use the words "correct" and "incorrect" in situations like this, and you haven't provided any sensible reason for refusing to use them likewise. All you've done is express an irrational unwillingness to join in, due to some childish aversion to the notion of conformity, which to you is some sort of bogeyman. — S
What it "means" is that they're not using the word conventionally/a la common usage, right? — Terrapin Station
No need for scare quotes. — Magnus Anderson
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.