|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 12:59:39 GMT -5
Just the adjective 'misconceived'. Can you imagine a case where the adjective 'misconceived' can be used? I.E. not necessarily a question. edit: The father of the baby and the mother of the baby both thought they were practicing safe sex when they rubbed potato skins on their foreheads and buried the potatoes in the garden on the night of a full moon. The baby was misconceived. Hmm. Good question How about a look at a definition? Since 'misconceived' is a past participle, we need to look at the verb-- Main Entry: misconceive ?[mis-kuhn-seev] Part of Speech: verb Definition: misunderstand Synonyms: be at cross purposes, be bewildered, be confused, be perplexed, confound, confuse, fail, get signals crossed, get signals mixed, get wrong, get wrong impression, misapply, misapprehend, miscalculate, miscomprehend, misconstrue, misinterpret, misjudge, misknow, misread, misreckon, miss the point, miss*, mistake, not register, take amiss, take wrongly Given this data, the only thing I can see that can be misconceived is a concept or an idea. Indeed, a question could be misconceived (as in, misunderstood), but only by the hearer. In other words, one cannot ask a misconceived question. So, I therefore clarify: no such thing as an asked misconceived question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 13:55:21 GMT -5
Can you imagine a case where the adjective 'misconceived' can be used? I.E. not necessarily a question. edit: The father of the baby and the mother of the baby both thought they were practicing safe sex when they rubbed potato skins on their foreheads and buried the potatoes in the garden on the night of a full moon. The baby was misconceived. Hmm. Good question How about a look at a definition? Since 'misconceived' is a past participle, we need to look at the verb-- Main Entry: misconceive ?[mis-kuhn-seev] Part of Speech: verb Definition: misunderstand Synonyms: be at cross purposes, be bewildered, be confused, be perplexed, confound, confuse, fail, get signals crossed, get signals mixed, get wrong, get wrong impression, misapply, misapprehend, miscalculate, miscomprehend, misconstrue, misinterpret, misjudge, misknow, misread, misreckon, miss the point, miss*, mistake, not register, take amiss, take wrongly Given this data, the only thing I can see that can be misconceived is a concept or an idea. Indeed, a question could be misconceived (as in, misunderstood), but only by the hearer. In other words, one cannot ask a misconceived question. So, I therefore clarify: no such thing as an asked misconceived question. Huh? If you can misconceive when listening to someone's words you can certainly misconceive when speaking. Conceiving is the bringing together of certain elements to make something new. Misconceiving is botching that process in some way. Maybe the elements were faulty, maybe the process of bringing them together, maybe the articulation and expression of the idea. There are lots of ways to botch it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 14:03:42 GMT -5
Hmm. Good question How about a look at a definition? Since 'misconceived' is a past participle, we need to look at the verb-- Main Entry: misconceive ?[mis-kuhn-seev] Part of Speech: verb Definition: misunderstand Synonyms: be at cross purposes, be bewildered, be confused, be perplexed, confound, confuse, fail, get signals crossed, get signals mixed, get wrong, get wrong impression, misapply, misapprehend, miscalculate, miscomprehend, misconstrue, misinterpret, misjudge, misknow, misread, misreckon, miss the point, miss*, mistake, not register, take amiss, take wrongly Given this data, the only thing I can see that can be misconceived is a concept or an idea. Indeed, a question could be misconceived (as in, misunderstood), but only by the hearer. In other words, one cannot ask a misconceived question. So, I therefore clarify: no such thing as an asked misconceived question. Huh? If you can misconceive when listening to someone's words you can certainly misconceive when speaking. Conceiving is the bringing together of certain elements to make something new. Misconceiving is botching that process in some way. Maybe the elements were faulty, maybe the process of bringing them together, maybe the articulation and expression of the idea. There are lots of ways to botch it. So, there are 'botched questions'? As in, 'sorry, wrong question. Next, please'?. Naw, sorry, I don't buy it. Another thing I don't buy is that "if you can misconceive when listening ... you can misconceive when speaking". You mean, like, mithcotheived thpeech? Yeth, I thupothe thith would be a mithconthepthion of thorths. Okay, tho...ith thith what ith referred to ath a mithcontheived quethtion?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 27, 2013 14:21:15 GMT -5
If you can misconceive when listening to someone's words you can certainly misconceive when speaking. Conceiving is the bringing together of certain elements to make something new. Misconceiving is botching that process in some way. Maybe the elements were faulty, maybe the process of bringing them together, maybe the articulation and expression of the idea. There are lots of ways to botch it. Chinese Whispers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 14:27:05 GMT -5
If you can misconceive when listening to someone's words you can certainly misconceive when speaking. Conceiving is the bringing together of certain elements to make something new. Misconceiving is botching that process in some way. Maybe the elements were faulty, maybe the process of bringing them together, maybe the articulation and expression of the idea. There are lots of ways to botch it. Chinese Whispers That was a good one. We do that but call it 'grapevine.' It's fun game. I don't know what's the biggest botch area, the listening or the articulating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 14:34:55 GMT -5
Huh? If you can misconceive when listening to someone's words you can certainly misconceive when speaking. Conceiving is the bringing together of certain elements to make something new. Misconceiving is botching that process in some way. Maybe the elements were faulty, maybe the process of bringing them together, maybe the articulation and expression of the idea. There are lots of ways to botch it. So, there are 'botched questions'? As in, 'sorry, wrong question. Next, please'?. Naw, sorry, I don't buy it. Another thing I don't buy is that "if you can misconceive when listening ... you can misconceive when speaking". You mean, like, mithcotheived thpeech? Yeth, I thupothe thith would be a mithconthepthion of thorths. Okay, tho...ith thith what ith referred to ath a mithcontheived quethtion? Well you're pointing to a speech impediment. That could affect the listener's understanding of the message being communicated. A lot of the time impediments such as these are based on physiology and anatomy. I don't think of them being in the same ballpark as what we are talking about, which is more in the realm of reasoning. But there certainly could be crossover. Are you just arguing that a question one conceives is just a question one conceives? If it represents poor logic or is based on faulty assumptions or misconceptions, it doesn't matter in terms of being conceived or not. The fact that it has been uttered means that it was properly conceived?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 14:40:23 GMT -5
So, there are 'botched questions'? As in, 'sorry, wrong question. Next, please'?. Naw, sorry, I don't buy it. Another thing I don't buy is that "if you can misconceive when listening ... you can misconceive when speaking". You mean, like, mithcotheived thpeech? Yeth, I thupothe thith would be a mithconthepthion of thorths. Okay, tho...ith thith what ith referred to ath a mithcontheived quethtion? Well you're pointing to a speech impediment. That could affect the listener's understanding of the message being communicated. A lot of the time impediments such as these are based on physiology and anatomy. I don't think of them being in the same ballpark as what we are talking about, which is more in the realm of reasoning. But there certainly could be crossover. Are you just arguing that a question one conceives is just a question one conceives? If it represents poor logic or is based on faulty assumptions or misconceptions, it doesn't matter in terms of being conceived or not. The fact that it has been uttered means that it was properly conceived? How about this... 1) person A has an idea 2) person A asks person B a question about that idea 3) person B then tells person A that the question is misconceived Where's the misconception?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 14:44:19 GMT -5
Well you're pointing to a speech impediment. That could affect the listener's understanding of the message being communicated. A lot of the time impediments such as these are based on physiology and anatomy. I don't think of them being in the same ballpark as what we are talking about, which is more in the realm of reasoning. But there certainly could be crossover. Are you just arguing that a question one conceives is just a question one conceives? If it represents poor logic or is based on faulty assumptions or misconceptions, it doesn't matter in terms of being conceived or not. The fact that it has been uttered means that it was properly conceived? How about this... 1) person A has an idea 2) person A asks person B a question about that idea 3) person B then tells person A that the question is misconceived Where's the misconception? Well could be 1, could be 2, could be 3, could be any combo, and could be all of the above. Hopefully in conversation there will be a consensus of where it's at.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 27, 2013 14:49:34 GMT -5
Well you're pointing to a speech impediment. That could affect the listener's understanding of the message being communicated. A lot of the time impediments such as these are based on physiology and anatomy. I don't think of them being in the same ballpark as what we are talking about, which is more in the realm of reasoning. But there certainly could be crossover. Are you just arguing that a question one conceives is just a question one conceives? If it represents poor logic or is based on faulty assumptions or misconceptions, it doesn't matter in terms of being conceived or not. The fact that it has been uttered means that it was properly conceived? How about this... 1) person A has an idea 2) person A asks person B a question about that idea 3) person B then tells person A that the question is misconceived Where's the misconception? My take is that when the questioner is being told that their question is misconceived, it is at (1), having the idea in the first place. Person B doesn't want to wipe A's butt and explain the misconception to them so they are left to wiping their own butt in figuring out where the misconception is, or even if there is a misconception. I think what you're wanting, Beingist, is to have someone explain and spell out the misconceptions instead of having someone just tell you "The question is misconceived".
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 14:55:02 GMT -5
How about this... 1) person A has an idea 2) person A asks person B a question about that idea 3) person B then tells person A that the question is misconceived Where's the misconception? Well could be 1, could be 2, could be 3, could be any combo, and could be all of the above. Hopefully in conversation there will be a consensus of where it's at. In other words, there is no misconception, except where you want to put it in your definition of a 'misconceived question'. In other words, there is no such thing as a misconceived question. Now, that's not to say that questions based on misconceptions can't happen. Happens all the time. In fact, I agree that existential questions are based on misconceptions. But there is no such thing as a misconceived question.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 15:04:56 GMT -5
How about this... 1) person A has an idea 2) person A asks person B a question about that idea 3) person B then tells person A that the question is misconceived Where's the misconception? My take is that when the questioner is being told that their question is misconceived, it is at (1), having the idea in the first place. Person B doesn't want to wipe A's butt and explain the misconception to them so they are left to wiping their own butt in figuring out where the misconception is, or even if there is a misconception. I think what you're wanting, Beingist, is to have someone explain and spell out the misconceptions instead of having someone just tell you "The question is misconceived". With your first sentence, I agree--an idea can be misconceived. With sentence #2, I don't know what this has to do with wiping anyone's butt, but the fact is, there is no misconception anywhere in the above, unless it is assumed by person B, but there is no evidence that would show that any question itself is misconceived, because there is no such thing. Now, if the idea is misconceived, then person B can tell person A that the idea is misconceived, but telling him the question is misconceived is errant. As to your last, I'm not really wanting anything, right now. Just sticking to my guns on this one. To be fair, when the issue first arose, much more discussion was issued from the original issuer of the 'misconceived question' term. They just didn't realize that the term was errant. No fault in that, and, in fact, I agreed then as well as now that the question (in this case, 'what am I?') is based on a misconception. But, the misconception is in the belief that there is anything to ask the question, not in the question itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 15:08:12 GMT -5
Well could be 1, could be 2, could be 3, could be any combo, and could be all of the above. Hopefully in conversation there will be a consensus of where it's at. In other words, there is no misconception, except where you want to put it in your definition of a 'misconceived question'. In other words, there is no such thing as a misconceived question. I'm not following. What if person A and person B converse and consense that there were some unfounded assumptions in the asking of the question in 2, for example. What would be wrong with describing the question in 2 as misconceived? No comprendo. Just to be clear, you're saying that even though a question may be built on faulty assumptions, or misconceptions, it is unfair or something to call that question misconceived. Because to you the conceiving of the question is irrelevant to whether the question makes any reasonable sense. Why is it important to you to stick to your guns on this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 15:26:27 GMT -5
If anyone can help me get over misreckoning this whole argument, I'd be much obliged.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jun 27, 2013 16:02:45 GMT -5
In other words, there is no misconception, except where you want to put it in your definition of a 'misconceived question'. In other words, there is no such thing as a misconceived question. I'm not following. What if person A and person B converse and consense that there were some unfounded assumptions in the asking of the question in 2, for example. What would be wrong with describing the question in 2 as misconceived? No comprendo. Just to be clear, you're saying that even though a question may be built on faulty assumptions, or misconceptions, it is unfair or something to call that question misconceived. Because to you the conceiving of the question is irrelevant to whether the question makes any reasonable sense. Not unfair, errant. And yes, because as long as the question makes sense (i.e., 'what is that?') it cannot, of itself, be misconceived. I really don't know. It just is. To ask why is based on a misconception, anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 16:05:46 GMT -5
I'm not following. What if person A and person B converse and consense that there were some unfounded assumptions in the asking of the question in 2, for example. What would be wrong with describing the question in 2 as misconceived? No comprendo. Just to be clear, you're saying that even though a question may be built on faulty assumptions, or misconceptions, it is unfair or something to call that question misconceived. Because to you the conceiving of the question is irrelevant to whether the question makes any reasonable sense. Not unfair, errant. And yes, because as long as the question makes sense (i.e., 'what is that?') it cannot, of itself, be misconceived. And what if the question doesn't make sense? Can it be called misconceived then? And how do you define whether a question makes sense or not? Why do apples taste like oranges?
|
|