Exploring the idea of an incorrect question

[PeteOlcott]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

[Iwannaplato]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Incorrect seems to treat it as an assertion we can check the truth value of.
How about incoherent or nonsensical or self-undermining?

[Skepdick]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

"Correctness" (exactly like truthfulness) is a semantic property.

If you can get yourself in a pickle with the liar's paradox then you can get yourself in a pickle with correctness.

It is correct that this sentence is incorrect.
Is this question correct or incorrect?

The question "Is this question correct?" is incorrect.
The question "Is this question correct?" is correct.

[Skepdick]

Incorrect seems to treat it as an assertion we can check the truth value of.
How about incoherent or nonsensical or self-undermining?

You are implying that Incoherent, nonsensical and self-undermining are assertions we can't check the truth value of.

So if it's not true that the question is Incoherent, nonsensical and self-undermining then why would anyone assert that is?

[PeteOlcott]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Incorrect seems to treat it as an assertion we can check the truth value of.
How about incoherent or nonsensical or self-undermining?

What about this: Contradictory polar questions have no correct (yes/no) answer
because they are contradictory.

[Iwannaplato]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Incorrect seems to treat it as an assertion we can check the truth value of.
How about incoherent or nonsensical or self-undermining?

What about this: Contradictory polar questions have no correct (yes/no) answer
because they are contradictory.

Or 'restrict the set of answers to ones that are not correct.'
I think it would be good to get a different example for the question.

One could answer: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
with: 'No.'

I don't mean that in some glib way. I just found when mulling that that answer kept coming up. With another similar question where such an answer isn't available would leave it easier for me to mull.

[PeteOlcott]

Incorrect seems to treat it as an assertion we can check the truth value of.
How about incoherent or nonsensical or self-undermining?

What about this: Contradictory polar questions have no correct (yes/no) answer
because they are contradictory.

Or 'restrict the set of answers to ones that are not correct.'
I think it would be good to get a different example for the question.

One could answer: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
with: 'No.'

I don't mean that in some glib way. I just found when mulling that that answer kept coming up. With another similar question where such an answer isn't available would leave it easier for me to mull.

Back in 2004 I derived the notion of incorrect question with this example:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

I have to first establish the foundation of the notion of an incorrect question
before I can proceed to the heart of the matter.

The actual question that I have in mind requires understanding and
acceptance of the mandatory role of situational context when deriving
the meaning of an expression of language.

[Impenitent]

does the physical world have to obey the rules of language?

-Imp

[Age]

does the physical world have to obey the rules of language?

-Imp

Does the 'conceptual world' have to obey the rules of language?

[Age]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Yes, now what is next?

[PeteOlcott]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Yes, now what is next?

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?

[Iwannaplato]

Back in 2004 I derived the notion of incorrect question with this example:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

I have to first establish the foundation of the notion of an incorrect question
before I can proceed to the heart of the matter.

I'm not sure why but I balk at the idea of an incorrect question. Your new example is better, I'm not plagued by an escape solution. I guess I associate correct and incorrect with assertions. In a sense there is an incorrect assertion in the question. The questioner has some confusion about, well, something.

It seems like pulling a social interaction down into something simple and binary, to think of questions as potentially incorrect. It's a complicated moment when someone seeks information

In that situation the person responding is likely going to express confusion or suggest the other person is confused about something. It would lead, usually to, a sorting out process.

I suppose one could say that about assertions also. That they could be parts of, and are parts of, social interactions. But this all seems more central when we have a question. I can't work with a question alone in the same way I can with an assertion. Someone is there to listen to my response. A book can hand me thousands of assertions to mull over.

Anyway, likely none of this is helpful in your project, but it seems off to me to consider questions correct and incorrect. What you're calling an incorrect question seems more like a temorary impasse in a human interaction.

The actual question that I have in mind requires understanding and
acceptance of the mandatory role of situational context when deriving
the meaning of an expression of language.

And now that you say this, perhaps I am not doing something completely other.

If you're willing, toss the question out now. If you don't want to yet, well, I can check back.

[Age]

Many people are aware that the Liar Paradox: "This sentence is not true."
is not a correct statement. The reason that the Liar Paradox is not a
correct statement is that it is not a truth bearer.

Because of this it seems to make perfect sense that statements that
are not truth bearers can be accurately categorized as incorrect
statements. Let's see if we can derive the equivalent notion of
incorrect polar (yes/no) question.

When we ask: "Is the Liar Paradox true or false?"
we derive a polar question that has no correct yes or no answer
because both answers are contradicted. It seems to me that
every such question where both answers are contradicted
would also be an incorrect question.

Does this make sense so far?

Yes, now what is next?

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.

[PeteOlcott]

Back in 2004 I derived the notion of incorrect question with this example:
"What time is it (yes or no)?"

I have to first establish the foundation of the notion of an incorrect question
before I can proceed to the heart of the matter.

I'm not sure why but I balk at the idea of an incorrect question. Your new example is better, I'm not plagued by an escape solution. I guess I associate correct and incorrect with assertions. In a sense there is an incorrect assertion in the question. The questioner has some confusion about, well, something.

It seems like pulling a social interaction down into something simple and binary, to think of questions as potentially incorrect. It's a complicated moment when someone seeks information

In that situation the person responding is likely going to express confusion or suggest the other person is confused about something. It would lead, usually to, a sorting out process.

I suppose one could say that about assertions also. That they could be parts of, and are parts of, social interactions. But this all seems more central when we have a question. I can't work with a question alone in the same way I can with an assertion. Someone is there to listen to my response. A book can hand me thousands of assertions to mull over.

Anyway, likely none of this is helpful in your project, but it seems off to me to consider questions correct and incorrect. What you're calling an incorrect question seems more like a temorary impasse in a human interaction.

The actual question that I have in mind requires understanding and
acceptance of the mandatory role of situational context when deriving
the meaning of an expression of language.

And now that you say this, perhaps I am not doing something completely other.

If you're willing, toss the question out now. If you don't want to yet, well, I can check back.

"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.

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.

[PeteOlcott]

Yes, now what is next?

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. 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 over the years.