"a failure to understand something correctly."
Given the dictionary definition above, it would appear that if someone tells you that they are pointing out your misunderstanding about a topic, they are implicitly asserting that they do understand something "correctly".
" in a way that is true, factual or appropriate; accurately."
Given the dictionary definition of correctly above, it seems appropriate to conclude that anyone who claims that they are correcting your misunderstandings is claiming that their understanding of the topic under discussion is "True, factual, or accurate.". If you think about it that's quite a claim embedded in one word. Misunderstanding doesn't convey a difference of opinion, it conveys "I'm right and you're wrong". What's interesting is that the words correctly, true, factual, and accurately, all all words that are binary, something either is True or false, accurate or inaccurate, factual or non factual, it's an objective claim of certainty.
7 comments:
One can misunderstand me and still have a better handle on the truth of the point in contention than me. So, I can be wrong...totally...yet still believe (and it may be true) the other person is misunderstanding what I'm saying regarding that point in contention. But for me to say the other person is misunderstanding the point in contention, absolutely means that I understand the point of contention precisely and in such a way the other person cannot refute it with facts or evidence. Or rather, that I am implying I have that superior knowledge of the point in contention regardless of whether or not it is so. In either case, there comes a point where I must demonstrate I am correct in my understanding and have evidence enough to demonstrate the other person misunderstands.
Way too much of the discourse in which we both involve ourselves requires only our side to prove anything. It would be so much easier if we also could simply assert and by doing so stand triumphant and condescending.
Craig...
What's interesting is that the words correctly, true, factual, and accurately, all all words that are binary, something either is True or false, accurate or inaccurate, factual or non factual, it's an objective claim of certainty.
If someone says that "There are purple zebras with wings on the dark side of the moon" or "I have an objectively provable moral system" and someone responds, "you're mistaken..." What they are conveying, more often than not, is that there is NO EVIDENCE (at least that they've seen) to support the claim. Now, it's POSSIBLE that there might be winged purple zebras on the moon or that some person/s might have an objectively provable moral system, but given the complete dearth of support for it, it's so unlikely as to say, "You're just mistaken," again, meaning there is no known data to support the claim.
To do so is not arrogant in any way and it IS an objectively reasonable, if there is no data to support the claim. If someone thinks they are NOT mistaken when they're making an outstanding claim like this, then the onus is on them to provide support for it and in the meantime, it is reasonable to conclude that they can not, in fact, support their claim.
Does this seem reasonable to you?
Art,
You are correct. In this case the person is saying that they are going to correct a misunderstanding, which is the second option you bring up.
"What they are conveying, more often than not"
Who is "they"? Are you claiming to speak for some unidentified group of people?
"is that there is NO EVIDENCE (at least that they've seen) to support the claim."
If that is really what "they" are saying, then why wouldn't "they" simply state that in clear unambiguous terms? Why would "they" say something else, then need you to explain what "they" really meant?
"Now, it's POSSIBLE that there might be winged purple zebras on the moon or that some person/s might have an objectively provable moral system, but given the complete dearth of support for it, it's so unlikely as to say, "You're just mistaken," again, meaning there is no known data to support the claim."
This has no relationship to the post, or to my point.
"To do so is not arrogant in any way and it IS an objectively reasonable, if there is no data to support the claim. If someone thinks they are NOT mistaken when they're making an outstanding claim like this, then the onus is on them to provide support for it and in the meantime, it is reasonable to conclude that they can not, in fact, support their claim."
Again, this is completely unrelated to my post.
"Does this seem reasonable to you?"
No, making comments that bear no relationship to the post, claiming to speak for others, and th like do not seem reasonable at all.
I'm referring to someone who claimed that others "misunderstood" something specific. Given the definitions above, claiming that others misunderstand something, is de facto a claim to understand the topic in question.
If only those who claimed others "misunderstood" had the courage, ability and evidence to prove it.
If only they did. I think that there is some sort of narcissism that leads them to believe that they don't have to.
Well, when one believes one is right, one should still "be prepared to give an answer". Perhaps that belief is not real should not answer be forthcoming.
Post a Comment