Whether or not it is used as a technical term, it is in fact a technical term and some people are misunderstanding it. The ready availability of posts from confused people does not mean that “‘Non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist” as your post claims. It just means that perhaps the choice of terminology had some annoying side effects.
A search engine will likewise show you that there are millions of people misusing other technical terms and subsequently confusing themselves and others, much as your post demonstrates your own confusion about the actual meaning of the term.
If the term used for such organizations was instead “flarbles”, would you be happy to change the title of the post to “‘Flarbles’ unlikely to exist”? Or is it just the existence of the general English word “profit” embedded in the term that supports the post?
Would you likewise claim that “Set Theorists” are unlikely to exist because “set” is a term that refers to mathematical sets, certain groups of games of tennis, placement of items, the process of some types of liquid forming a solid (and so on), and nobody actually studies all of those things as part of their job?
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
So this is your personal opinion then?
As far as I’m aware you are the first and only person so far on LessWrong to have elaborated such a peculiar theory. The other commenter believes in the opposite, and most folks that I know of have in-between views.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
The above section doesn’t seem to elaborate on your answer.
Are they meant to be extending your prior comment?
Whether or not it is used as a technical term, it is in fact a technical term and some people are misunderstanding it. The ready availability of posts from confused people does not mean that “‘Non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist” as your post claims. It just means that perhaps the choice of terminology had some annoying side effects.
A search engine will likewise show you that there are millions of people misusing other technical terms and subsequently confusing themselves and others, much as your post demonstrates your own confusion about the actual meaning of the term.
If the term used for such organizations was instead “flarbles”, would you be happy to change the title of the post to “‘Flarbles’ unlikely to exist”? Or is it just the existence of the general English word “profit” embedded in the term that supports the post?
Would you likewise claim that “Set Theorists” are unlikely to exist because “set” is a term that refers to mathematical sets, certain groups of games of tennis, placement of items, the process of some types of liquid forming a solid (and so on), and nobody actually studies all of those things as part of their job?
Who decides the fact of whether or not something is a ‘technical term’, regardless of popular usage?
In this case, people who read your claim “‘non-profit’ organizations unlikely to exist”.
There definitely do exist organizations labelled as “non-profit” by various government bodies and legal bodies. Furthermore, while many people can’t necessary articulate the definition of the term in their jurisdiction, they are generally aware that there is one and that they can consult an expert if they ever need to determine whether an organization actually is a non-profit organization or not.
There are very few people who will believe that there is actually no recognized definition for the term and who believe that they should just try to guess one from the words used in the name.
So even on a “populist” theory of language, it’s still generally recognized that it does refer to some definition made by some regulating body as a technical term.
So this is your personal opinion then?
As far as I’m aware you are the first and only person so far on LessWrong to have elaborated such a peculiar theory. The other commenter believes in the opposite, and most folks that I know of have in-between views.
The above section doesn’t seem to elaborate on your answer.
Are they meant to be extending your prior comment?