You need to distinguish between errors that are of no significance and errors that are significant. Although Bob’s words were not literally true, the error is not relevant to the proposition for which the statement was used as evidence. (That’s what a nitpick means: caring about an error that is not relevant to the associated proposition.)
Bob’s statement 1: “I literally have a packet of blue BIC pens in my desk drawer” was not literally true, and that error was not relevant to the proposition that BIC make blue pens. I’m okay with assigning “basically full credit” for that statement.
Bob’s statement 2: “All I really meant was that I had blue pens at my house” is not literally true. For what proposition is that statement being used as evidence? I don’t see an explicit one in mattmacdermott’s hypothetical. It’s not relevant to the proposition that BIC make blue pens. This is the statement for which I assigned a “large demerit for being untrustworthy about the meaning of his own words, in a low stakes situation where there was no reason to lie”.
I don’t think that Bob’s statement 2 is an error of no significance. If I’m Alice, and Bob is my friend, then he apparently just lied to my face. Hopefully it’s a one-off slip of the tongue, and not part of a pattern.
Bob’s statement 2: “All I really meant was that I had blue pens at my house” is not literally true. For what proposition is that statement being used as evidence?
It’s not being used as evidence for anything.
“All I really meant” is a colloquial way of saying “the part relevant to the proposition in question was...” As such, it was in fact truthful.
You need to distinguish between errors that are of no significance and errors that are significant. Although Bob’s words were not literally true, the error is not relevant to the proposition for which the statement was used as evidence. (That’s what a nitpick means: caring about an error that is not relevant to the associated proposition.)
Bob’s statement 1: “I literally have a packet of blue BIC pens in my desk drawer” was not literally true, and that error was not relevant to the proposition that BIC make blue pens. I’m okay with assigning “basically full credit” for that statement.
Bob’s statement 2: “All I really meant was that I had blue pens at my house” is not literally true. For what proposition is that statement being used as evidence? I don’t see an explicit one in mattmacdermott’s hypothetical. It’s not relevant to the proposition that BIC make blue pens. This is the statement for which I assigned a “large demerit for being untrustworthy about the meaning of his own words, in a low stakes situation where there was no reason to lie”.
I don’t think that Bob’s statement 2 is an error of no significance. If I’m Alice, and Bob is my friend, then he apparently just lied to my face. Hopefully it’s a one-off slip of the tongue, and not part of a pattern.
It’s not being used as evidence for anything.
“All I really meant” is a colloquial way of saying “the part relevant to the proposition in question was...” As such, it was in fact truthful.