I agree that this can often be a reasonable and interesting thing to do.
I would certainly not support any such thing becoming expected or mandatory. (Not that you implied such a thing—I just want to forestall the obvious bad extrapolation.)
I like the norm of discussing a hypothetical interpretation you find interesting/relevant, without a need to discuss (let alone justify) its relation to the original statement or God forbid intended meaning.
I would certainly not support any such thing becoming expected or mandatory.
Do you mean that you don’t support the norm of it not being expected for hypothetical interpretations of statements to not needing to justify themselves as being related to those statements? In other words, that (1) you endorse the need to justify discussion of hypothetical interpretations of statements by showing those interpretations to be related to the statements they interpret, or something like that? Or (2) that you don’t endorse endless tangents becoming the norm, forgetting about the original statement? The daisy chain is too long.
It’s unclear how to shape the latter option with policy. For the former option, the issue is demand for particular proof. Things can be interesting for whatever reason, doesn’t have to be a standard kind of reason. Prohibiting arbitrary reasons is damaging to the results, in this case I think for no gain.
Do you mean that … (1) you endorse the need to justify discussion of hypothetical interpretations of statements by showing those interpretations to be related to the statements they interpret, or something like that?
No, absolutely not.
Or (2) that you don’t endorse endless tangents becoming the norm, forgetting about the original statement?
Yeah.
My view is that first it’s important to get clear on what was meant by some claim or statement or what have you. Then we can discuss whatever. (If that “whatever” includes some hypothetical interpretation of the original (ambiguous) claim, which someone in the conversation found interesting—sure, why not.) Or, at the very least, it’s important to get that clarity regardless—the tangent can proceed in parallel, if it’s something the participants wish.
EDIT: More than anything, what I don’t endorse is a norm that says that someone asking “what did you mean by that word/phrase/sentence/etc.?” must provide some intepretation of their own, whether that be a guess at the OP’s meaning, or some hypothetical, or what have you. Just plain asking “what did you mean by that?” should be ok!
Things can be interesting for whatever reason, doesn’t have to be a standard kind of reason. Prohibiting arbitrary reasons is damaging to the results, in this case I think for no gain.
I agree that this can often be a reasonable and interesting thing to do.
I would certainly not support any such thing becoming expected or mandatory. (Not that you implied such a thing—I just want to forestall the obvious bad extrapolation.)
Do you mean that you don’t support the norm of it not being expected for hypothetical interpretations of statements to not needing to justify themselves as being related to those statements? In other words, that (1) you endorse the need to justify discussion of hypothetical interpretations of statements by showing those interpretations to be related to the statements they interpret, or something like that? Or (2) that you don’t endorse endless tangents becoming the norm, forgetting about the original statement? The daisy chain is too long.
It’s unclear how to shape the latter option with policy. For the former option, the issue is demand for particular proof. Things can be interesting for whatever reason, doesn’t have to be a standard kind of reason. Prohibiting arbitrary reasons is damaging to the results, in this case I think for no gain.
No, absolutely not.
Yeah.
My view is that first it’s important to get clear on what was meant by some claim or statement or what have you. Then we can discuss whatever. (If that “whatever” includes some hypothetical interpretation of the original (ambiguous) claim, which someone in the conversation found interesting—sure, why not.) Or, at the very least, it’s important to get that clarity regardless—the tangent can proceed in parallel, if it’s something the participants wish.
EDIT: More than anything, what I don’t endorse is a norm that says that someone asking “what did you mean by that word/phrase/sentence/etc.?” must provide some intepretation of their own, whether that be a guess at the OP’s meaning, or some hypothetical, or what have you. Just plain asking “what did you mean by that?” should be ok!
Totally agreed.