I ask myself about many statements: would this have the same meaning if the word “really” were inserted? As far as my imagination can project, any sentence that can have “really” inserted into it without changing the sentence’s meaning is at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? --> If a tree falls in the forest, does it really make a sound?
Is Terry Schiavo alive? --> Is Terry Schiavo really alive?
Is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy? --> Is the sunk cost fallacy really a fallacy?
“Really” in this context means that an answer has already been provided by someone but you object to the rationale given for this provided answer, particularly because it’s too shallow. In other words, it’s not a description of the problem the question asks you to solve, it’s a description of the context in which the problem is to be solved. So the fact that it can be done with any sentence doesn’t mean that it provides no information, just like “Like I was discussing with Joe last week, is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy?” doesn’t provide no information.
Do you really ask yourself that about many statements?
Would this really have the same meaning if the word “really” were inserted?
Is any sentence that can have “really” inserted into it without changing the sentence’s meaning really at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition?
I ask myself about many statements: would this have the same meaning if the word “really” were inserted? As far as my imagination can project, any sentence that can have “really” inserted into it without changing the sentence’s meaning is at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition.
If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? --> If a tree falls in the forest, does it really make a sound?
Is Terry Schiavo alive? --> Is Terry Schiavo really alive?
Is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy? --> Is the sunk cost fallacy really a fallacy?
Did you really mean “that can have” rather than “that can’t have”?
As far as I can tell you can do that with any sentence.
Can you really do that with any sentence?
“Really” in this context means that an answer has already been provided by someone but you object to the rationale given for this provided answer, particularly because it’s too shallow. In other words, it’s not a description of the problem the question asks you to solve, it’s a description of the context in which the problem is to be solved. So the fact that it can be done with any sentence doesn’t mean that it provides no information, just like “Like I was discussing with Joe last week, is the sunk cost fallacy a fallacy?” doesn’t provide no information.
Do you really ask yourself that about many statements?
Would this really have the same meaning if the word “really” were inserted?
Is any sentence that can have “really” inserted into it without changing the sentence’s meaning really at least somewhat a wrong question, one based on an unnatural category or an argument by definition?