Yup, all understood. (I think in practice any given use of the word is likely to have a bit of both meanings in it, with or without concomitant equivocation.)
[EDITED to add:] Maybe it’s worth saying a little about your analogy. To whatever extent the analogy does more than merely illustrate your distinction between rationalist-1 and rationalist-2 (and I take it it is intended to do a little more, since the distinction was perfectly clear without it), it seems that you see yourself as being in something like the position of the Hypothetical Evangelical, asking us all “do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Sequences, neither the power of rationality?”. That of course is why I dedicated most of my comment to arguing against your actual claim, that those who seek truth through clear thinking must choose their concept-boundaries without any considerations other than minimizing average description length. And my position is a bit like one I remember holding not infrequently in the past, when I was (alas) a moderately-evangelical Christian: I can see how you see the Sequences as supporting your position, but I don’t think that’s the only or the best way to interpret the relevant bits of the Sequences, and to whatever extent Eliezer was saying the same thing as you I’m afraid I think that Eliezer was wrong. (Yes, I am suggesting, tongue somewhat but not wholly in cheek, a parallel between some Christians’ equivocation between “God’s will” and “what is written in the bible” and your appeal to the authority of Eliezer’s posts about word and concepts when arguing for what seem to me inadvisably-extreme positions on how rationalists should use words.)
Incidentally, I’m aware that that’s now twice in a row that I’ve responded very briefly and then edited in more substantive comments. I promise I’m not doing it out of any wish to deceive or anything like that. It’s just that sometimes I’m right on the fence about how much it’s worth saying.
Yup, all understood. (I think in practice any given use of the word is likely to have a bit of both meanings in it, with or without concomitant equivocation.)
[EDITED to add:] Maybe it’s worth saying a little about your analogy. To whatever extent the analogy does more than merely illustrate your distinction between rationalist-1 and rationalist-2 (and I take it it is intended to do a little more, since the distinction was perfectly clear without it), it seems that you see yourself as being in something like the position of the Hypothetical Evangelical, asking us all “do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the Sequences, neither the power of rationality?”. That of course is why I dedicated most of my comment to arguing against your actual claim, that those who seek truth through clear thinking must choose their concept-boundaries without any considerations other than minimizing average description length. And my position is a bit like one I remember holding not infrequently in the past, when I was (alas) a moderately-evangelical Christian: I can see how you see the Sequences as supporting your position, but I don’t think that’s the only or the best way to interpret the relevant bits of the Sequences, and to whatever extent Eliezer was saying the same thing as you I’m afraid I think that Eliezer was wrong. (Yes, I am suggesting, tongue somewhat but not wholly in cheek, a parallel between some Christians’ equivocation between “God’s will” and “what is written in the bible” and your appeal to the authority of Eliezer’s posts about word and concepts when arguing for what seem to me inadvisably-extreme positions on how rationalists should use words.)
Incidentally, I’m aware that that’s now twice in a row that I’ve responded very briefly and then edited in more substantive comments. I promise I’m not doing it out of any wish to deceive or anything like that. It’s just that sometimes I’m right on the fence about how much it’s worth saying.