³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069538³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069586³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³21³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069586³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioNs of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069598³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³22³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069598³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepTs) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069656³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³23³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069656³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069666³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³24³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069666³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT'''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069677³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³25³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069677³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT''s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069697³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³26³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069697³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least coextensive with) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981069913³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³27³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981069913³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the "genuineness" of a dispute (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose "Joshua" maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981070276³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³28³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981070276³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³30³3text³3A dispute is ''semantic'' if (1) the parties to the DisAgreement agree on all material facts, but (2) disagree on the DefinitioN''''s of key terms (they have different understandings of the meaning, the words are associated with different ConcepT s) used to formulate contrary theses (i.e., two theses that cannot both be true).  Consequently, their disagreeing on these definitions explains why there is a dispute at all.

It is sometimes held that semantic disputes are not genuine disputes at all, but very often they ''are'' regarded as perfectly genuine, e.g., in PhiloSophy.  One might well wonder, of course, exactly what turns on the claim that a dispute is "genuine" (see GenuineDisputes).

It is also sometimes held that, when a semantic dispute arises, the focus of the debate should switch from the original thesis to the meaning of the terms of which there are different definitions (understandings, concepts, etc.).

As a purely HypotheticalExample, one disputant, call him "Tim," might maintain that the UnitedStates has the highest StandardOfLiving (see [http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?UnitedStates/StandardOfLiving standard of living]) in history.  Suppose Joshua maintains the precise contradictory of that claim.  Being reasonable people, they agree on all relevant statistical results, but they disagree about the meaning of "StandardOfLiving": Tim holds that PerCapitaIncome is the meaning of (or at least an infallible or direct indicator of) "standard of living," while Joshua disagrees with this.  In this case, Tim and Joshua have (suffer, are engaging in) a semantic dispute.
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981069538³2keepts³2981071598³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³29