"I agree with you that they would have their facts wrong. Having your facts wrong is prima facie not understanding what you are saying, unless you think people understand they have their facts wrong, and say things anyway.
No it is prima facie to other people understanding what you are saying or not. As in the color example. The person understands what he is saying. He may, however, have his facts wrong, be using the wrong terms to express what he understands, be delusional, or lieing.
"I really don't know if you think an understanding of the facts is irrelevant to an understanding of what one is saying. "
It is relevant to other people understanding what you are saying, not to you understanding what you are saying.
"You seem to have just argued that they are different things. I think they are one and the same thing.
It is a difference in semantics. If some one in the office speculates on an office affair between person A and person B, and I gasp, saying do you "understand" that you just accused them of adultery; the person may say no that is not what I meant and restate their idea of what is going on. Or they may disagree and simply say that is not what I said, you misunderstood me...Actually any number of scenarios can be created to deal with what was an apparent misunderstanding. The issue is one of the two people coming to an understanding, not the original speaker being unable to understand what she said. |
