SBF: Okay, just a few clarifying questions:
Constructionists accept the ordinary use of language and respect its usefulness. What we object to is the idea that this usefulness equates to identity with reality.
Two questions: Firstly, when a person say "the earth is round", that would then be a true statement in ordinary language? So if you were to object to it, you would in principle have to prefix your objection as: "Not speaking inordinary language then.."? If this is not the case, what determines ordinary language?
I agree words and abstract concepts are not reality.
What it means instead is a recognition that the everyday sense of words can be overturned at any time.
That's an interesting idea. What is the evidence that it is true? Could you outline a plausible scenario in which the everyday sense of the word "banana" could be overturned? Like an actually plausible everyday scenario where the everyday usage of "banana" would become something quite different?
I would object and say that since the everyday meaning of words remain quite stable over time, the "overturning" of the meaning of a word is a rare occurrence and when the meaning of a word changes it is usually insignificant as the two speakers realize they are talking about different things and therefore begin to use synonyms.
It's an approach to language a bit like wishing for a sterile operating theatre. We would want the theatre to be completely sterile for our operation. In the real world 100% sterile theatre cannot be achieved.
Okay but here is the problem: Cofty (for instance) don't step into the operating theater. He stays outside where words have the common-sense meaning and where you too are living most of your life. But then once in a while you choose effectively to analyze what Cofty says from the "operating theater" perspective despite you knowing well enough that Cofty is making common-language statements. Can you see why this might be a bit annoying?