4 ms·

Technically you are correct - the best kind of correct. "The distribution of the measured IQ very closely follows a bell curve." would have been the correct wa

Technically you are correct - the best kind of correct. "The distribution of the measured IQ very closely follows a bell curve." would have been the correct way to formulate.

madez 11y ago
To be technically correct is the only way for a statement to be correct. If it's "non-technically correct" it is ill-frased. This debates started by people stating wrong things but still wanting others to understand them.
- mreiland 11y ago
  While mathematics has for the most part been built up using 2-valued logic, that isn't how humans perceive the world, which is why someone will say something like "you are technically correct", or they'll say "technically that's, but...".
  - madez 11y ago
    It is true that binary logic is not the ultimate logic. However, "technically correct" vs "correct" is not a debate of whether one value of true is enough. The word "technically" is used with "correct" as a rhetoric tool. It seems like they are attacking the truthness of the statement, but in fact they are trying to put the statement into a bigger context. So many people misuse it as such that some even understand it as an attack of the truthness of the statement.
    - mreiland 11y ago
      > So many people misuse it as such that some even understand it as an attack of the truthness of the statement. No, they use it as a device to point out that there is more context around the discussion than whether or not something is true or false (hence my point about 2-valued logic). I could say race is defined by genetics, and while that's technically correct, it adds nothing to a discussion about race relations. This is the context in which people use this term. When people say things like "you're technically correct, the best kind of correct", it's a tongue in cheek way of pointing out the observation is true, but lacks contextual information in order to be useful. This is why it tends to be a joke, in general everyone implicitly understands this.
      - madez 11y ago
        I could say race is defined by genetics, and while that's technically correct, it adds nothing to a discussion about race relations. Whether a statement does or does not add to a discussion is an independent to whether it's true or not. Genetics define physical race. That is technically correct, hence it's plain correct and it's true. If a statement doesn't add to a discussion, then it's misusing of language to say that the statement is "technically correct" instead of clearly saying that the statement is not relevant. It could be conventional to use "technically correct" to mean "true but important context is missing", so everybody understood it. Some define a language to be correct the way it is used commonly. However, I don't agree and I'd still consider it misusing language. If context is missing, then why talking about the correctness instead of supplying missing context? People using "technically correct" like you described indirectly devalue correctness. That follows the lines of valuing more the consequences of a statement than whether it's true or not. I'd rather see the world like it is than how I'd like it to be. Therefore, correctness is very important to me and I think it shouldn't be subtly devalued. How about you?
        mreiland 11y ago
        you must be fun at parties. You'll outgrow that attitude eventually, you should revisit that last post when you do.

Technically you are correct - the best kind of correct. "The distribution of the measured IQ very closely follows a bell curve." would have been the correct way to formulate.

madez 11y ago

To be technically correct is the only way for a statement to be correct. If it's "non-technically correct" it is ill-frased. This debates started by people stating wrong things but still wanting others to understand them.

mreiland 11y ago
While mathematics has for the most part been built up using 2-valued logic, that isn't how humans perceive the world, which is why someone will say something like "you are technically correct", or they'll say "technically that's, but...".
- madez 11y ago
  It is true that binary logic is not the ultimate logic. However, "technically correct" vs "correct" is not a debate of whether one value of true is enough. The word "technically" is used with "correct" as a rhetoric tool. It seems like they are attacking the truthness of the statement, but in fact they are trying to put the statement into a bigger context. So many people misuse it as such that some even understand it as an attack of the truthness of the statement.
  - mreiland 11y ago
    > So many people misuse it as such that some even understand it as an attack of the truthness of the statement. No, they use it as a device to point out that there is more context around the discussion than whether or not something is true or false (hence my point about 2-valued logic). I could say race is defined by genetics, and while that's technically correct, it adds nothing to a discussion about race relations. This is the context in which people use this term. When people say things like "you're technically correct, the best kind of correct", it's a tongue in cheek way of pointing out the observation is true, but lacks contextual information in order to be useful. This is why it tends to be a joke, in general everyone implicitly understands this.
    - madez 11y ago
      I could say race is defined by genetics, and while that's technically correct, it adds nothing to a discussion about race relations. Whether a statement does or does not add to a discussion is an independent to whether it's true or not. Genetics define physical race. That is technically correct, hence it's plain correct and it's true. If a statement doesn't add to a discussion, then it's misusing of language to say that the statement is "technically correct" instead of clearly saying that the statement is not relevant. It could be conventional to use "technically correct" to mean "true but important context is missing", so everybody understood it. Some define a language to be correct the way it is used commonly. However, I don't agree and I'd still consider it misusing language. If context is missing, then why talking about the correctness instead of supplying missing context? People using "technically correct" like you described indirectly devalue correctness. That follows the lines of valuing more the consequences of a statement than whether it's true or not. I'd rather see the world like it is than how I'd like it to be. Therefore, correctness is very important to me and I think it shouldn't be subtly devalued. How about you?
      - mreiland 11y ago
        you must be fun at parties. You'll outgrow that attitude eventually, you should revisit that last post when you do.