negotiation of vocablulary between two people is far more important than using a proper definition. proper defintions will never be accurate enough to account for the subtle differences in the way each person conceptualizes a thing
In my view, "correctness" is an analog comparison of two variables. Something can be alittle correct and somthing else alittle more correct. But 'right/wrong' are discrete comparisons.
An interpretation of an ACTUAL thing made with one's senses is always more complete that an interpretation of someone else's account who developed the definition
When I said they build an interpretation of definitions I meant that you perceive the words as ideas, AKA their definition and build an interpretation off of that, the ideas you project onto the words are based off experience and perception
but traditionally, you learn to identify those things you observe from each other FIRST assigning arbitrary labels THEN those labels are standardized into proper definitions
but the concept in your mind always varies somewhat from the label it is given. sometimes your concept has more detail than the proper definiton. sometimes less
i think we both agree that Scale, for example, puts more emphasis on proper definitions than on the concepts being identified. thus the insistance that it is ALWAYS worth declaring something 'legal' or not even though there really is no reason
in my view, getting the idea across and being understood as well as understanding the other person is MORE important than utilizing the proper label or term which may or may not be known by both parties
academics are alot like post-modernists in that they insist on using external vocabularies even if they are overly complicated and not known by all parties. this is counter-productive and typically a way of just making themselves feel superior as the other doesn't know what they deem the proper term
