Can we make statements about something other than language in your view? — Terrapin Station

Absolutely. You can make statements about any portion of the universe -- not just language. For example, you can say that Donald Trump's face is orange. Nothing to do with language.

And would you say that you never use "correct" prescriptively? — Terrapin Station

Saying that something is correct or incorrect is not a prescriptive statement, it is a descriptive one. If you say that "The sky is red" and I say "That's not correct" that is not the same kind of statement as "You should adopt the view that sky is blue" or "People should have true beliefs". Of course, I'd rather be surrounded by people whose beliefs are true . . . if that's one of the things you're asking me.

He assumed.... — Magnus Anderson

I didn't assume anything. You said your definition was "the correct meaning of the word chair". You repeated this in your follow up reply to me.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's an important distinction to be made between "the correct meaning" and "a correct meaning".

I think it a little unfair to accuse me of making assumptions for simply taking you at your word.

Saying that something is correct or incorrect is not a prescriptive statement, it is a descriptive one. If you say that "The sky is red" and I say "That's not correct" that is not the same kind of statement as "You should adopt the view that sky is blue" or "People should have true beliefs". Of course, I'd rather be surrounded by people whose beliefs are true . . . if that's one of the things you're asking me. — Magnus Anderson

"Correct" has a prescriptive connotation. Because people would rather be surrounded by folks whose beliefs are true as you say.

It's true that most people use words to refer to things that most people use them to refer to.

When someone uses a word in a way that doesn't at all match the convention, do you ask them first if they were trying to match the convention before you tell them they don't have the word correct?

You said your definition was "the correct meaning of the word chair". You repeated this in your follow up reply to me.

As I'm sure you're aware, there's an important distinction to be made between "the correct meaning" and "a correct meaning". — ChrisH

Well, that's not what I meant. Let's say I expressed myself in a way that wasn't the best. What I wanted to say is that the word "chair" has a number of correct meanings (one or more) and a number of incorrect meanings (again, one or more.) I don't know the exact numbers, I just know that the number of correct meanings is >= 1 and the number of incorrect meanings is also >= 1.

"Correct" has a prescriptive connotation. Because people would rather be surrounded by folks whose beliefs are true as you say. — Terrapin Station

In most cases, yes.

So, when someone uses a word in a way that doesn't at all match the convention, do you ask them first if they were trying to match the convention before you tell them they don't have the word correct?

Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that question.

If they're not trying to match the convention, then telling them that they're not matching the convention (by saying that something is correct/incorrect) is irrelevant, right? And they're certainly not saying something not true, because they weren't trying to match the convention.

Let's say I expressed myself in a way that wasn't the best. — Magnus Anderson

I thought that might be the case but I wasn't sure. My initial response to you gave you the opportunity to correct your mistake but for some reason you decided to go defensive.

I thought that might be the case but I wasn't sure. My initial response to you gave you the opportunity to correct your mistake but for some reason you decided to go defensive. — ChrisH

I don't think I was being defensive in the slightest.

If they're not trying to match the convention, then telling them that they're not matching the convention is irrelevant, right? And they're certainly not saying something not true, because they weren't trying to match the convention. — Terrapin Station

The mistakes they make might stem from their lack of regard for conventions. Such cases are numerous. But you're right in the sense that it's not always relevant. Sometimes. it simply does not matter.

And yes, if you speak your own language, that does not necessarily mean what you're saying is wrong.

The mistakes they make might stem from their lack of regard for conventions. — Magnus Anderson

You're saying that even if they're not trying to match the convention, they could be making a mistake?

Sure you were. (Being defensive) Chris H made a 100% understandable reading of what you said, and then you acted like he was foolish or assuming. He wasnt at all. His point about the distinction between “a” and “the” is well made. The meaning of the sentence changes significantly between uses of the two words.
It doesnt matter, you clarified what you meant but the only mistake in the exchange was made by you when you didnt choose your words (just one word in this case) more carefully.

You're saying that even if they're not trying to match the convention, they could be making a mistake? — Terrapin Station

I am saying that their lack of regard for conventions can lead them to making mistakes of all sorts.

I am saying that their lack of regard for conventions can lead them to making mistakes of all sorts. — Magnus Anderson

If you're not trying to match the convention, because of a lack of regard for it, how could you make a mistake in word definition/usage?

I mean, this is clearly of a case of you thinking that people SHOULD have concern with conventions and try to match them.

Which has been my point all along, contra the attempted spin of nonsense.

Sure you were. (Being defensive) — DingoJones

Maybe you'd like to go back and read my initial response to him:

I think you're mistaken.

Any good dictionary (essentially a record of existing usages) will give at least 6 different meanings. — ChrisH

That's true. Maybe I can correct myself by saying that's one of several correct meanings of the word? — Magnus Anderson

I do, however, think that he's nitpicking and missing the point.

Defensiveness? Not really.

If you're not trying to match the convention, because of a lack of regard for it, how could you make a mistake in word definition/usage? — Terrapin Station

You can form mistaken beliefs.

You can form mistaken beliefs. — Magnus Anderson

I'm asking you specifically about word definition/usage.

I am telling you that it is relevant to criticize their lack of regard for conventions because it makes them blind to reality. Have you ever come across people who claim that the brain is inside consciousness and not the other way around?

Maybe you'd like to go back and read my initial response to him: — Magnus Anderson

You're quoting your second response to me.

Your initial response contained no correction and repeated your error. That looks defensive to me.

Your initial response contained no correction and repeated your error. That looks defensive to me. — ChrisH

It was your second post that made your point clear.

It was your second post that made your point clear. — Magnus Anderson

In my first post I explained clearly the difference between "the correct" and "a correct" and stated that I disagreed with your use of "the correct".

What was not clear?

What you just said.

I am telling you that it is relevant to criticize their lack of regard for conventions because it makes them blind to reality. — Magnus Anderson

? First off, this is prescriptivist.

Secondly, how does not regarding linguistic conventions make them "blind to reality"?

Re the brain/mind question, yes, sure I've come across people who believe that, but what does that have to do with what I'm asking you about whether someone is trying to match conventional language usage when they define or use a term?

You stated the following:

If they're not trying to match the convention, then telling them that they're not matching the convention is irrelevant, right? — Terrapin Station

And I responded by saying that I disagree.

There are times when it is relevant to remind them that they are using words in an unconventional way -- even though they themselves have no interest in using words the way most people do. For example, if they are misunderstanding others because they forgot or simply never realized that other people are using words in a different way, then you have to remind them of this fact.

If I say something like "Cats cannot fly" and you tell me I am wrong merely because you fail to realize that I don't define the word "cat" the way you do -- you define it to mean "dragon" -- then it would be more than relevant to remind you that your use of words is unconventional.

Don't you agree?

Concepts are residents of the realm of reflection and analysis. Retrojecting them into unified experience is a natural thing to do, but it produces philosophical problems when we notice a priori features of concepts.

In spite of that, we do retroject, and in the process we construct an analyzed world.

It's a matter of confusing the dismantled cuckoo clock for the unified one. We do this reflexively and then laud that it "works" and therefore must yield a solid foundation for a kind of realism.

Agree?

If I say something like "Cats cannot fly" and you tell me I am wrong merely because you fail to realize that I don't define the word "cat" the way you do -- you define it to mean "dragon" -- then it would be more than relevant to remind you that your use of words is unconventional. — Magnus Anderson

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. I said, "If S is not trying to match the convention, then telling S that they're not matching the convention is irrelevant."

You're positing S not matching the convention and S telling U that U is wrong.

Let's say I expressed myself in a way that wasn't the best. — Magnus Anderson

You expressed yourself just fine, and far from coming across as defensive, you conceded too readily in my opinion. Those who are jumping in to criticise you just failed to fill in the blanks correctly. If they had've done so, then they would've realised that this point which they raised about "the" vs. "a" simply doesn't apply here. It is a correct meaning, but more importantly it's the correct meaning given the circumstance you had in mind. There is only one correct answer in this hypothetical situation, in spite of the fact that there are multiple definitions for the word. That there are multiple definitions for the word is of no relevance in relation to the point you were making.