I can ask someone: ‘How many things are there in the world?‘. They can say ‘Are two different numbers the same thing?’ or ‘Are all apples the same thing or is each instantiation of an apple a separate thing?’.
These rules are not agreed on before hand and so the participants must try to map their internal representations to the other person’s.
In your example of the supplement trial, Alice assumes some level of agreement on what it would mean for what reasonable research is. And only after each step in discussion are Alice’s tacit assumptions revealed or unshrouded by a Wittgensteinian ‘Language Game’.
I can ask someone: ‘How many things are there in the world?‘. They can say ‘Are two different numbers the same thing?’ or ‘Are all apples the same thing or is each instantiation of an apple a separate thing?’.
These rules are not agreed on before hand and so the participants must try to map their internal representations to the other person’s.
In your example of the supplement trial, Alice assumes some level of agreement on what it would mean for what reasonable research is. And only after each step in discussion are Alice’s tacit assumptions revealed or unshrouded by a Wittgensteinian ‘Language Game’.