Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

[Skepdick]

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004. It can be a game changer in philosophy.

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question. Three different researchers
have been involved in the question of the years.

How do you know whether any question is a yes/no question?

Is this question a yes/no question?

If you answer "Yes, it is a yes/no question" then it's a yes/no question.
If you answer "No, it's not a yes/no question" then it is still a yes/no question.

Oops!

[Iwannaplato]

"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
Is the above an incorrect question when posed to Carol?

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004. It can be a game changer in philosophy.

How would this be a game changer? What would we learn or change?

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question.

I mean, if someone wants to label them that way, I won't be trying to publish attack pieces in academic journals. I'd prefer something like 'a question with a faulty assumption in it'. But hey, that's me. I think I could muster an argument but so far I don't feel very strongly. Perhaps if I knew how this is a game changer, I'd become adamant or swayed.

Three different researchers
have been involved in the question of the years.

What have they been doing?

[PeteOlcott]

"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
Is the above an incorrect question when posed to Carol?

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004. It can be a game changer in philosophy.

How would this be a game changer? What would we learn or change?

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question.

I mean, if someone wants to label them that way, I won't be trying to publish attack pieces in academic journals. I'd prefer something like 'a question with a faulty assumption in it'. But hey, that's me. I think I could muster an argument but so far I don't feel very strongly. Perhaps if I knew how this is a game changer, I'd become adamant or swayed.

Three different researchers
have been involved in the question over the years.

What have they been doing?

I came up with the idea of an incorrect question back in 2004.
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

Another guy came up with the original version of the above
question back in 2004.
"Will Jack's answer to this question be no?"

Another guy adapted the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
and anchored a whole research paper in the idea that
the question has no correct yes/no answer within the
context that the question is posed to Carol.

I am proceeding to anchor the correct interpretation of the
precise meaning of the question in the situational context
of discourse analysis. In other words if we do not include
who is being asked then we do not get the correct meaning
of the actual question.

[Age]

Within situational context in discourse analysis
(that takes into account who is being asked the question
as an element of the meaning of the question)

"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
Is the above an incorrect question when posed to Carol?

This, to me, is getting more absurd, more ridiculous, and more nonsensical than 'the liar's paradox' is. That is; if it is actually possible to.

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004.

The more years of so-called 'research' does NOT necessarily lead one closer to the Truth.

Also, 'many years' is VERY RELATIVE, and thus 2004 was NOT necessarily 'many years' ago AT ALL.

It can be a game changer in philosophy.

HOW and WHY would that seemingly ABSURD question, supposedly, be a so-called 'game changer in philosophy? And, in WHAT WAY, EXACTLY?

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question.

Okay. BUT SO WHAT?

Three different researchers
have been involved in the question over the years.

WHY, I ASK, would one person spend A second 'researching' ANY 'thing' here? WHAT is 'there' to even be 'researched'?

WHAT are ANY of those three different "researches" searching FOR, EXACTLY?

WHAT are 'they' LOOKING FOR, or EXPECTING TO FIND, EXACTLY?

[Age]

"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
Is the above an incorrect question when posed to Carol?

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004. It can be a game changer in philosophy.

How would this be a game changer? What would we learn or change?

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question.

I mean, if someone wants to label them that way, I won't be trying to publish attack pieces in academic journals. I'd prefer something like 'a question with a faulty assumption in it'. But hey, that's me. I think I could muster an argument but so far I don't feel very strongly. Perhaps if I knew how this is a game changer, I'd become adamant or swayed.

Three different researchers
have been involved in the question over the years.

What have they been doing?

I came up with the idea of an incorrect question back in 2004.
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

And HOW LONG, EXACTLY, did it take you to COME UP WITH 'this Truly ABSURD and NONSENSICAL QUESTION' here?

Another guy came up with the original version of the above
question back in 2004.
"Will Jack's answer to this question be no?"

Another guy adapted the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
and anchored a whole research paper in the idea that
the question has no correct yes/no answer within the
context that the question is posed to Carol.

BESIDES 'you', three people, WHO ELSE CARES?

I am proceeding to anchor the correct interpretation of the
precise meaning of the question in the situational context
of discourse analysis. In other words if we do not include
who is being asked then we do not get the correct meaning
of the actual question.

1. WHICH "carol"?

2. 'Carol' is JUST A NAME, or LABEL, given to a HUMAN BODY, usually around the 'birth of THAT body'.

3. WHO, as in 'Who am 'I'?' EXACTLY, would have to be KNOWN, FIRST, BEFORE ANY of 'you' could even BEGIN to WORK OUT if 'you' ARE, or ARE NOT, INCLUDING 'the WHO', in 'the WHO' is being ASKED.

4. WHAT I can CLEAR SEE above here is just ANOTHER FORM of the ABSOLUTE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS lengths that SOME human being WILL GO to 'try to' come off SMARTER or CLEVER than "ANOTHER".

[PeteOlcott]

This, to me, is getting more absurd, more ridiculous, and more nonsensical than 'the liar's paradox' is. That is; if it is actually possible to.

This verbatim question is the result of many years of research dating
back to 2004.

The more years of so-called 'research' does NOT necessarily lead one closer to the Truth.

Also, 'many years' is VERY RELATIVE, and thus 2004 was NOT necessarily 'many years' ago AT ALL.

It can be a game changer in philosophy.

HOW and WHY would that seemingly ABSURD question, supposedly, be a so-called 'game changer in philosophy? And, in WHAT WAY, EXACTLY?

My assertion is that every (yes/no) question that has no correct
yes/no answer because both answers are contradicted by the
question is an incorrect question.

Okay. BUT SO WHAT?

Three different researchers
have been involved in the question over the years.

WHY, I ASK, would one person spend A second 'researching' ANY 'thing' here? WHAT is 'there' to even be 'researched'?

WHAT are ANY of those three different "researches" searching FOR, EXACTLY?

WHAT are 'they' LOOKING FOR, or EXPECTING TO FIND, EXACTLY?

I came up with the idea of an incorrect question back in 2004.
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

Another guy came up with the original version of the above
question back in 2004.
"Will Jack's answer to this question be no?"

Another guy adapted the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"
and anchored a whole research paper in the idea that
the question has no correct yes/no answer within the
context that the question is posed to Carol.

I am proceeding to anchor the correct interpretation of the
precise meaning of the question in the situational context
of discourse analysis. In other words if we do not include
who is being asked then we do not get the correct meaning
of the actual question.

I really need to know how widely situational context of
discourse analysis is accepted as legitimate across linguists
and philosophers of language.

[Iwannaplato]

I am proceeding to anchor the correct interpretation of the
precise meaning of the question in the situational context
of discourse analysis. In other words if we do not include
who is being asked then we do not get the correct meaning
of the actual question.

OK, I get a vague idea of how this can be useful. Using these problematic questions as a foot in the door to why context is necessary in general.

[PeteOlcott]

I am proceeding to anchor the correct interpretation of the
precise meaning of the question in the situational context
of discourse analysis. In other words if we do not include
who is being asked then we do not get the correct meaning
of the actual question.

OK, I get a vague idea of how this can be useful. Using these problematic questions as a foot in the door to why context is necessary in general.

There is an enormously greater issue at stake here.
I can't even hint at that until I have a broad consensus.

[Iwannaplato]

There is an enormously greater issue at stake here.
I can't even hint at that until I have a broad consensus.

ok

[PeteOlcott]

There is an enormously greater issue at stake here.
I can't even hint at that until I have a broad consensus.

ok

This seems to be true:
The pragmatics subfield of linguistics stipulates that a difference between
the derived meaning from ignoring situational context and not ignoring it
means that situational context cannot be correctly ignored.

[Iwannaplato]

There is an enormously greater issue at stake here.
I can't even hint at that until I have a broad consensus.

ok

This seems to be true:
The pragmatics subfield of linguistics stipulates that a difference between
the derived meaning from ignoring situational context and not ignoring it
means that situational context cannot be correctly ignored.

I can't say I fully understand that sentence, but it seems to me context has radical effects on all forms of communication.
Which is why people who know each other in person, if their talk was transcribed into text, might seem to be not managing to communicate at all...while they were.

[PeteOlcott]

ok

This seems to be true:
The pragmatics subfield of linguistics stipulates that a difference between
the derived meaning from ignoring situational context and not ignoring it
means that situational context cannot be correctly ignored.

I can't say I fully understand that sentence, but it seems to me context has radical effects on all forms of communication.
Which is why people who know each other in person, if their talk was transcribed into text, might seem to be not managing to communicate at all...while they were.

When I ask someone: "Are you a little girl?" then "yes" is correct
and "no" is correct depending on who I ask.

From this we can understand that the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

Does not have a correct yes or no answer when posed to Carol,
yet does have a correct "no" answer when posed to anyone else.

[Iwannaplato]

When I ask someone: "Are you a little girl?" then "yes" is correct
and "no" is correct depending on who I ask.

From this we can understand that the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

Does not have a correct yes or no answer when posed to Carol,
yet does have a correct "no" answer when posed to anyone else.

Yes, I got that.
And then when a 5'10 inch man asks a 10 year old female (of average height for her age) if she is a little girl both yes and no might be correct responses.

[PeteOlcott]

When I ask someone: "Are you a little girl?" then "yes" is correct
and "no" is correct depending on who I ask.

From this we can understand that the question:
"Can Carol correctly answer "no" to this question?"

Does not have a correct yes or no answer when posed to Carol,
yet does have a correct "no" answer when posed to anyone else.

Yes, I got that.
And then when a 5'10 inch man asks a 10 year old female (of average height for her age) if she is a little girl both yes and no might be correct responses.

The key distinction that I am making here is that the above is an
incorrect question when posed to Carol, thus not a correct question
that Carol simply cannot answer (as if she was mute).

[Iwannaplato]

The key distinction that I am making here is that the above is an
incorrect question when posed to Carol, thus not a correct question
that Carol simply cannot answer (as if she was mute).

I have a little trouble with the grammar in the above, but yes, I get that the question is problematic when aimed at Carol, but not if it's aimed at someone else. I was just playing around with the little girl question and context effects. I would say it is almost an incorrect question, given your use of incorrect questions, though it's not almost incorrect because it is aimed at the 10 year old female. It is still almost incorrect if someone else is asked about that 10 years the same way.

But I think it is going to be hard for me and perhaps others to be wowed by this idea until we know all the things you are withholding. I assume you are protecting your conclusions so you can publish first or the like. But whatever the reason, here we are.