As in “That statement is categorically false.”
My participation in a [thread=701822]recent thread[/thread] makes me think I probably don’t have a good understanding of what that word means (despite the fact that I use it from time to time).
From your friendly dictionary:
ETA: OK, that’s not the full definition, just the first one…
The entire category of statements is false.
“NASA faked moon landings”. No version or variant of that is true, it’s categorically false.
Is how I understand it.
Yes I looked it up too. So it’s basically just a generic intensifier? The statement is not just false, it’s really, really very false! Is that it? Seems like there should be more to it.
Also, it’s not just raining hard. It’s raining categorically hard. Doesn’t sound right.
That’s how I have understood it too. But what does the word add to just saying the statement is false? For example, what would be a statement that is false, but not *categorically * false?
What it adds, is not meaning but emphasis.
So now it’s just a variant of a generic “very.” How dull and pointless. But surely when “categorically false” was first used, it must have had some specific meaning that was distinguishable from “very false”?
Here’s a good example: “If you ask a girl to marry you and she says maybe, you might be able to persuade her. If it’s no, you might still have a chance. But if she gives you a categorical no, she will never change her mind.”
I don’t think you can use it to emphasize how hard it is raining. Categorically means absolutely and I’m not sure “It’s raining absolutely hard” makes sense.
Have you heard it used regarding rain or did you just come up with that example? The National Weather Service does use “categorical” for forecasting the chance of rain. It means there’s an 80-100% chance, so they may have a forecast for 60% but as the time gets closer and the rain looks like a sure thing, they may update it to “categorical.” It means it will absolutely rain.
I think the word is often just used as an intensifier, but I had the impression (possibly incorrect) that a “categorical denial” or saying that something was “categorically false/untrue” meant that you were denying not just the specific accusation but anything of a similar nature. So “I never accepted a bribe from X. I categorically denied it” would mean not just that the speaker never accepted a bribe from one particular person, but that they have never accepted bribes from anyone at all.
There’s a difference between “very” and “categorical.” Categorical means “absolute, without a doubt, period, anything else is ridiculous, 100% unquestionable.” You very much need friends and family in life, you categorically need air to breathe.
One example might be: “NASA landed the first man on the moon in June, 1969”.
NASA did, in fact, land the first man on the moon, and they did it in 1969: but not in June. The statement is false, but only in detail.
That might be what it implies now, but I doubt that this was its original, intended meaning. For example, what is the link between “categorical” and “category”?
categorical (adj.) Look up categorical at Dictionary.com
1590s, as a term in logic, “unqualified, asserting absolutely,” from Late Latin categoricus, from Greek kategorikos “accusatory, affirmative, categorical,” from kategoria (see category). General sense of “explicit, unconditional” is from 1610s. Categorical imperative, from the philosophy of Kant, first recorded 1827. Related: Categorically.
There’s two ways to handle a topic.
- Run through all categories of the topic, and show that your proposition is true for all categories, and then show that no category contradicts the proposition.
eg “show taxes are good”, by running through all the categories of taxes, and then show that all the categories of taxes are good.
(I can categorically state this is not an example found in real life. )
- proof it true some other way that doesn’t use categories.
What I am getting at is that method 1 is ‘categorically’, while 2 could be said to be "A proof that is not categorical’ .
Its not meant to be taken so literal though - it seems that ‘categorically’ can apply where the proof ignores categories… no qualifier was required…
Because its probably true that the method 2 proof is equivalent of a method 1 proof 
So really it just means there is no category that is the exception.
And of course when its used for a topic that isn’t involving categories, then it just means ‘unqualified’… or “its Not double speak that I say that my proposition is true”.
Would you say then that in order for a statement to be categorically false, it has to have been stated as if it were categorically true?
It’s not just an intensifier. It’s effectively a way of saying; on ANY plausible interpretation of X --broad or narrow, loose or specific–X is false.
Useful example: Clinton said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” after learning the truth we’re still not sure whether what he said counts as strictly speaking false. But if he had said “I categorically deny having sexual relations with that woman” --then he would have most definitely said something false.
In short, it’s a way of saying “not only are the allegations false on a strict interpretation, you also will not be mislead if you believe me ON ANY other interpretation”
This is still the best explanation posted yet. The term originates from formal logic.
You should know. 
The statement falls into a broader category that would include other statements; and every statement in the entire category is false.
Example:
Because you were born in early January, you’re a Capricorn and therefore you are inclined by nature to be confident and practical and goal-oriented.
That statement is categorically false.
unpacking: it falls in the larger category of statements attributing personality or behavioral characteristics to astrological signs associated with one’s birth, and all that is utter bullshit. Similar statements about Virgos or Tauruses would fall into the same category. They’re all false.
“Categorical” comes in handy when one wishes to quote the fights historical, say from Marathon to Waterloo.
