"Common sense"? Your favorite definition/clarification?

[Thermal]

I tried to get into rate coin collecting, but only had common cents.

 

[Mojo]

Of course, nevermind that the thread is in the "religion and philosophy" section with the title:

"Common Sense?¨ Your favorite definition/clarification?

...which suggests that the calls for evidence usually found in the science section (and woo-busting topics) might be out of place.

Nope. Kumar tried that a few years back.

 

[a_unique_person]

The world taken for granted.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There is also a dictionary definition for "dragon." That doesn't mean that dragons exist or that stories about them should be taken literally.

Definition of 'dragon'

In stories and legends, a dragon is an animal like a big lizard. It has wings and claws, and breathes out fire.

Your move.

I will admit that the dictionary definition is what people -think- they're saying, but the usage in context begs to differ, basically because that's not how reality and human behavior actually interface with each other.

Which usage would that be?

And I don't need evidence. "Common sense" should tell you that I'm right, surely? I'm not explaining anything particularly complicated.

Straw man.

 

[Manopolus]

Straw man.

LOL, Now look up the dictionary definition of Straw man. I dare you. And then please describe how it applies to the quoted section, which was essentially just a demonstration of usage for comic relief (and yes, it was intentionally blunt for emphasis), rather than an argument of any sort. The argument happened elsewhere.

 

[Manopolus]

Nope. Kumar tried that a few years back.

What you're missing is that I'm perfectly fine with my "claims" being "examined." But the nature of the thread itself suggests that my "claim" is that this is my favorite definition/clarification of "common sense" which isn't exactly a falsifiable thing. Do you understand now?

It's not merely the fact that it's in the religion and philosophy section. Among other things, I'm well aware that the methods of science itself are essentially a branch of philosophy. And yes, I probably should have omitted the mention of what section it was in, because that part was somewhat irrelevant. False start acknowledged.

Also, when discussing definitions, there is no real "proof" available. Two different people can have legitimate differences relating to the exact nuances of the meaning of a word. There is no objective truth, here. The way you resolve it is generally to use more words in order to clarify and avoid misunderstanding.

Although yes... I'm also aware that statistical analysis of word usage exists (which is actually how LLM's work), but it's not really all that useful in this case. Contextual intent is too subjective to establish the categories, despite the fact that we can usually still manage to comprehend each other eventually.

And if you're taking anything I'm saying as a complaint... don't. I actually rather enjoy arguing over minutiae, especially when we're talking about language, itself. Stretching language to its limits in order to convey thought is literally my greatest ambition in life. That shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm exceptionally good at it, of course. It just means I try.