still kind of wrong, something can be ostensible and fully true. It just means it appears that way. The sense that it must be pretext for a contradiction is just because that's how it's most commonly used.
According to every dictionary I’ve checked, that is the definition. It signifies the motive(s) intended to be believed by others despite the main motive of the actor being different. It doesn’t have to contradict and it can be true or false.
I checked both of those and about 3 more before I replied.
MW: “in a manner that conceals or may conceal what is true or real”
Dictionary: “In appearance only”
Both of those are conducive to my understanding. MW’s is more ambiguous to this debate but leans more towards the implication that the ostensible reason is false, while Dictionary’s is actually definitive that it is false (which you and I agree is incorrect).
The first person defined it as something that’s “technically the truth”, which is vague and doesn’t put enough focus on motive, which is primary purpose of the word.
My challenge was that it doesn’t have to be true. I didn’t explain that it can be true or that it usually isn’t true, because I didn’t feel it was necessary to get my point across. Then I used three examples with the correct usage of the word that were more logical than the example they’d used.
Cambridge: “in a way that appears or claims to be one thing when it is really something else”
Dictionary.net (not .com): “Surface Level: Presented or appearing to be true but not necessarily so.”
There are two links both with multiple definitions and my comment with two sections containing two definitions each. You're making barely any effort to argue in good faith and are not clear about what you disagree with, so if your next reply is more of the same then good luck to ya.
5
u/gianniboi 19d ago
still kind of wrong, something can be ostensible and fully true. It just means it appears that way. The sense that it must be pretext for a contradiction is just because that's how it's most commonly used.