What do you mean by that? Why wouldn't it? — S

Because you keep claiming that you're simply using the term descriptively, so that it simply pegs the consensus usage as such.

Why should someone adhere to the consensus usage when they tell you they're using some odd definition, like "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy'"?

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?

I think there was a huge amount of handwaving in the dash in freedom/randomness. What you’ve said so far is that you believe that there are random and determined events. But we can both agree that a random event doesn’t amount to a choice right? — khaled

Again, "some phenomena involve freedom/randomness, which is sometimes biased so that it's not just a .50-.50 or .33-.33.-.33 etc. equal chance of all possibilities."

That's not at all controversial scientifically, by the way. For one, it's standard in quantum mechanics.

Just to clarify, I use "free will" so that it's referring to will phenomena, where ontological freedom obtains (ontological freedom involves randomness, but not necessarily equiprobable-among-possibilities randomness). And free will seems to involve non-equal biasing of the possibilities.

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?

And they can successfully communicate with you using the conventional definition if they're familiar with it, etc.

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."

After they tell you, "I define 'correct' as 'a puppy,'" you're saying that the person needs to follow the convention.

Not even that. If you are not willing, you are not saying anything. — unenlightened

:rofl:

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?

So will causes physical phenomena but is not caused by it? You seem to be describing something akin to magic here. Is not caused or explained by the laws of physics yet can directly apply a force here or there. — khaled

So:

(1) I'm not a realist on physical laws,

and

(2) I'm not a strong determinist in general, in other words, not just when we're talking about free will, but when we're talking about physical phenomena in general.

I think it's possible for there to be ontological free--or random/stochastic--phenomena in general. That's not a rejection of causality in the determinist sense, it's just not a thoroughgoing, "strong," universal acceptance of it. Some phenomena involve freedom/randomness, which is sometimes biased so that it's not just a .50-.50 or .33-.33.-.33 etc. equal chance of all possibilities.

So will would be an example of a phenomenon that's not strongly deterministic. But phenomena that are not strongly deterministic can cause other phenomena without freedom/randomness being a factor.

"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."

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." It's broader than that. The unbound claim has an implication that one SHOULD follow conventions, should follow suit. That it's right to follow conventions. But that's hogwash of course.

If you were simply saying "Defining 'correct' as 'a type of puppy' is not the conventional definition; it's not what the dictionary says," the person you're saying that to can simply say, "So what? I wasn't attempting to relay the dictionary or conventional definition."

You'd still want to say that they're incorrect, though.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.?

Or disagreement depending on the interpretation, right?

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

There aren't correct/incorrect interpretations.

I think Terrapin has solidified his stance on this issue enough that he could have the discussion in his sleep, — ZhouBoTong

Haha--that's the case for a lot of this stuff. I've had more or less the same views about a lot of philosophical issues for 30 to 40 years, and even longer for a few things. And I've been talking about that stuff with others in the manner that we do here for just about that long, including remotely via computer, starting almost 40 years ago via BBSs, and then for the past 25+ years on the Internet.

But you haven’t answered whether or not they CAUSE physical phenomena. — khaled

Sure, will causes physical phenomena. All physical phenomena cause other physical phenomena, unless they occur in a vacuum, but your brain isn't in a vacuum.

What about other animals? — khaled

Other animals have brains that are very similar to our own.

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?

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?

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.

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

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your car, which a relationship between a combustion engine, wheels, tires, drive train, etc. is to the left (another a relationship) of your body, which I already said is a relationship between your various organs. — Harry Hindu

But you're specifying things that aren't relationships--combustion engines, etc. You could describe them in terms of relationships, but it can't be just relationships. It has to be a relationship of something to something else.

Particles are things like quarks--matter with no substructure/not composed of other particles.

refusing to use a person's chosen pronouns does slightly deny their right to exist as such. — thewonder

That's ridiculous. The only thing it "denies" is you calling them the term in question.

If you were to engage in a debate with an Arab Muslim over Islam, then they would have more of an existential stake in the debate. The hegemony of Western culture does not deny your right to exist. You don't really have anything to lose by engaging in the debate. The other perspective has more 'weight' to it or something. It doesn't mean that they're right. It just means that they have more of an existential stake in the debate. — thewonder

What are we talking about re "denying your 'right' to exist" though? What's an example of that?

There is no claim that you attest by making an argument. — thewonder

That's obviously false, though. You must have something in mind other than what you're literally saying.

You aren't of a marginalized position — thewonder

What determines this, exactly, and why does it matter, exactly?

don't need to stake your existence — thewonder

What the heck is "staking one's existence"?

A person who is queer has to contend the validity of their being — thewonder

That's just nonsense, though. First off, "validity" doesn't apply to "being."

Imagine if I exclusively decided to refer to you as "she" or "her" in a demeaning sexist sense. Terrapin Station made a comment. She is totally off of her rocker. You would, at first, probably ignore this as you would consider yourself to be someone who is above engaging in such a discourse, but would probably eventually be bothered by it enough to address me with why it is that you don't think that I should do that. — thewonder

Actually I couldn't care less how you address me, what you call me. The only "requirement" if you want a response is that I have to be able to figure out that you're addressing me somehow. But you don't have to care about that, of course.

If you don't care about etiquette in general this is a deeper problem than just apparently bollocks pronouns, sis. — fdrake

It's only a problem for people who care about etiquette and want me to follow it. :yum:

If someone wants to be a fucking genderqueer blue wolf who uses "zem" pronouns why the hell do you care. — fdrake

I certainly don't care. It's just that I'm not going to be restricted to how other people want me to use language, unless I think there's a good reason to cater to the person's requests.

That's kind of in line with me not caring for conventions of etiquette in general. If you're going to have a problem with me not using the "right" silverware, not eating in the "right" order, not following some arbitrary set of ritualistic behavior, etc., then you'd probably better not hang out with me. You can do whatever you want and I won't give you a hard time about it. But I'm going to do the same thing, and I expect you to not give me a hard time about it, too.

You have no existential stake in the argument. — thewonder

You're basically restating this. What does it amount to to have an existential stake in an argument?

This is coming across to me like empty rhetoric where one isn't expecting it to be challenged.

They get the preference because they have the stake in the argument. — thewonder

What in the world does that refer to, to "have the stake in the argument"?

Your stubborn insistence upon maintaining the rules of English grammar — thewonder

??? I'm not saying anything even remotely in the vein of endorsing "the rules of English grammar."

You call those two somethings, "particles". I call them relationships. — Harry Hindu

Again, relationships are such as "to the left of," "is the parent of," "is similar to" etc.

So give an example of a relationship that is just to another relationship.

Also, isn't it interesting how we have to resort to BELIEVING, or NOT BELIEVING, in the truth of epistemologies, rather than relying, instead, on the possibility of empirically verifying them, or not? We know the empirical reasons why we believe that Einstein's theories are "truer" than Newton's. — charles ferraro

Hopefully empirical evidence has some bearing on why you'd believe one over the other.

Your demands disregard the demands of others. — thewonder

Their demands disregard mine.

Who gets preference and why?