We would like now to be called “A Center for Applied Rationality,” not “the Center for Applied Rationality.” Because we’d like to be visibly not trying to be the one canonical locus.
FWIW, I tried this for a bit and failed. Saying “a Center for Applied Rationality” just sounds nonsensical and every time I have considered using it in conversation I predicted that I would just get weird blank stares.
I am planning to continue calling it “the Center for Applied Rationality” as a result (and also am kind of annoyed about what reads to me as basically non-grammatical language on the website and other places, plus a request to non-standard language that I think would be reliably embarrassing when trying to use it in conversation).
My guess is if you want to change the usage here, you’ll have to change the name properly.
I added a footnote above modifying our request to “when it’s easy/convenient.” Eg as mattmacdermott notes below, we can at least use it as a tagline (“Signed, Anna from A Center for …”).
The problem is that organizations generally do not include the article used to refer to them in their names. For example, the name of the Council on Foreign Relations is not ‘The Council on Foreign Relations’, but ‘Council on Foreign Relations’. For this reason, one should always use the definite article ‘the’ to refer to CFAR, because one’s intention is to refer to the entity so named. Saying “a Center for Applied Rationality” would invite questions like, “Wait! Are there other orgs also called ‘Center for Applied Rationality’?”
Alternatively, you could change ‘Center for Applied Rationality’ to ‘A Center for Applied Rationality’, but this would also be very strange. As mentioned, entities do not generally include the article as part of their names, but when they do, it is, to my knowledge, always the definite article (e.g., The New York Times).
My humble advice is to drop this idea. You can communicate that you are not trying to be the one canonical org on this topic in other ways.
I think even that signature tagline version does not work so well, as people who do not know it would possibly not understand that you are referring to a specific organization. It would at least need to be
FWIW, I tried this for a bit and failed. Saying “a Center for Applied Rationality” just sounds nonsensical and every time I have considered using it in conversation I predicted that I would just get weird blank stares.
I am planning to continue calling it “the Center for Applied Rationality” as a result (and also am kind of annoyed about what reads to me as basically non-grammatical language on the website and other places, plus a request to non-standard language that I think would be reliably embarrassing when trying to use it in conversation).
My guess is if you want to change the usage here, you’ll have to change the name properly.
“A Center for Applied Rationality” works as a tagline but not as a name
You’re right. Oops!
I added a footnote above modifying our request to “when it’s easy/convenient.” Eg as mattmacdermott notes below, we can at least use it as a tagline (“Signed, Anna from A Center for …”).
The problem is that organizations generally do not include the article used to refer to them in their names. For example, the name of the Council on Foreign Relations is not ‘The Council on Foreign Relations’, but ‘Council on Foreign Relations’. For this reason, one should always use the definite article ‘the’ to refer to CFAR, because one’s intention is to refer to the entity so named. Saying “a Center for Applied Rationality” would invite questions like, “Wait! Are there other orgs also called ‘Center for Applied Rationality’?”
Alternatively, you could change ‘Center for Applied Rationality’ to ‘A Center for Applied Rationality’, but this would also be very strange. As mentioned, entities do not generally include the article as part of their names, but when they do, it is, to my knowledge, always the definite article (e.g., The New York Times).
My humble advice is to drop this idea. You can communicate that you are not trying to be the one canonical org on this topic in other ways.
I think even that signature tagline version does not work so well, as people who do not know it would possibly not understand that you are referring to a specific organization. It would at least need to be
“Anna from
CFAR—a center for …”