Removing qualifiers from my speech and writing helps me think clearly because it forces me to make positive statements about reality. Compare the following three statements.
“China is the center of human history.”
“I think China is the center of human history.” ― If you actually (100%−ϵ) thought China is the center of human history then you wouldn’t say “think”. You would say “China is the center of human history”. If you are unsure then you could say “I wonder if China is the center of human history.” Saying “I think…” isn’t exactly wrong, but it would be better to suspend judgment while you find out whether China is the center of human history. If you know the truth then you can state it with confidence. Using prefaces like “I think…” is putting your opinion before the facts. It changes the topic of a conversation from reality to your thoughts, often precipitating an epistemic train wreck.
“I believe China is the center of human history.” ― The “I believe…” qualifier is even worse than “I think…” because believing in belief damages your epistemics.
A statement without qualifiers is the most meaningful because it is the most narrow. (More precisely, it forces entropy out of a probability distribution.) Qualifiers like “I think” signal lack of confidence. Such signals accurately calibrate statements when you truly do lack confidence. Signaling lack of confidence when you are confident obfuscates communication.
In my real life experience, people who demand unnecessary qualifiers are dangerous to consort with. (By unnecessary qualifier, I mean redundant words like “It seems to me…” when you know something to be true. Qualifiers like “one of the ___s” are fine if you really mean “one of the ___s”.)
If ”x is true” then I will say ”x is true”. If ”x is not true” then I will say ”x is not true”.
If ”x is true” then I will say ”x is true”. If ”x is not true” then I will say ”x is not true”.
I just want to point out that “X is true” and “X is a fact” are themselves a type of qualifier, and it could be interesting to ask when/why a person says this rather than merely “X”. Are these somehow better than other qualifiers? If so, why?
For example, many people are more inclined to talk about “facts” and “truth” when talking about contentious political issues, while rarely using those words at all when talking of practical matters like bills, groceries, etc.
Such people might benefit from taking their own utterance of “fact/truth” as a warning sign, and check for motivated cognition or other problems.
Removing qualifiers from my speech and writing helps me think clearly because it forces me to make positive statements about reality. Compare the following three statements.
“China is the center of human history.”
“I think China is the center of human history.” ― If you actually (100%−ϵ) thought China is the center of human history then you wouldn’t say “think”. You would say “China is the center of human history”. If you are unsure then you could say “I wonder if China is the center of human history.” Saying “I think…” isn’t exactly wrong, but it would be better to suspend judgment while you find out whether China is the center of human history. If you know the truth then you can state it with confidence. Using prefaces like “I think…” is putting your opinion before the facts. It changes the topic of a conversation from reality to your thoughts, often precipitating an epistemic train wreck.
“I believe China is the center of human history.” ― The “I believe…” qualifier is even worse than “I think…” because believing in belief damages your epistemics.
A statement without qualifiers is the most meaningful because it is the most narrow. (More precisely, it forces entropy out of a probability distribution.) Qualifiers like “I think” signal lack of confidence. Such signals accurately calibrate statements when you truly do lack confidence. Signaling lack of confidence when you are confident obfuscates communication.
In my real life experience, people who demand unnecessary qualifiers are dangerous to consort with. (By unnecessary qualifier, I mean redundant words like “It seems to me…” when you know something to be true. Qualifiers like “one of the ___s” are fine if you really mean “one of the ___s”.)
If ”x is true” then I will say ”x is true”. If ”x is not true” then I will say ”x is not true”.
I just want to point out that “X is true” and “X is a fact” are themselves a type of qualifier, and it could be interesting to ask when/why a person says this rather than merely “X”. Are these somehow better than other qualifiers? If so, why?
For example, many people are more inclined to talk about “facts” and “truth” when talking about contentious political issues, while rarely using those words at all when talking of practical matters like bills, groceries, etc.
Such people might benefit from taking their own utterance of “fact/truth” as a warning sign, and check for motivated cognition or other problems.