A variant of the principle of charity
Jan. 5th, 2012 03:12 amSometimes there's ambiguity as to whether a person is making a statement that is [interestingly] false or trivially true. In these cases, I always like to assume that they're making a statement that is false.
If you make a statement that is just false, that just means you messed up somewhere or you're misinformed; someone can point out the error and we can actually have a sensible discussion; maybe your mistake will actually lead somewhere interesting. If you make a statement that is trivially true, however -- and you don't throw in an "of course" or the equivalent to indicate that you know the statement is trivial[0], instead asserting it as if it contained actual information -- you're just wasting everyone's time. Of course we already know that; it's not even saying anything. So I try to be generous and assume that you're trying to make a good point, but making some mistakes, rather than that you are wasting everyone's time.
Unfortunately it seems every now and then I encounter someone who considers this uncharitable, who has the reaction of "Why would you think I meant something that stupid when there's other obvious interpretation which is actually correct?" Indeed, this is a violation of the usual principle of charity. But if we consider an extended principle of charity which includes Hanlon's razor -- people do often seem to include that when they talk about the principle of charity -- then it makes sense. Making incorrect statements is just ignorance; making worthless statements (as if they were not worthless) can be interpreted as (admittedly quite petty) malice. Or if we want to be extra-charitable, I assume people would rather be the sort of people who get facts wrong, rather than be the sort of people who can't even tell what's worth stating and what isn't.
So that's the reasoning there. Unfortunately when someone gets annoyed at you over this there usually isn't time to explain this...
-Harry
[0]Doing this removes the ambiguity, so this heuristic won't come into play; I'll be aware you meant the true-but-trivial statement.
If you make a statement that is just false, that just means you messed up somewhere or you're misinformed; someone can point out the error and we can actually have a sensible discussion; maybe your mistake will actually lead somewhere interesting. If you make a statement that is trivially true, however -- and you don't throw in an "of course" or the equivalent to indicate that you know the statement is trivial[0], instead asserting it as if it contained actual information -- you're just wasting everyone's time. Of course we already know that; it's not even saying anything. So I try to be generous and assume that you're trying to make a good point, but making some mistakes, rather than that you are wasting everyone's time.
Unfortunately it seems every now and then I encounter someone who considers this uncharitable, who has the reaction of "Why would you think I meant something that stupid when there's other obvious interpretation which is actually correct?" Indeed, this is a violation of the usual principle of charity. But if we consider an extended principle of charity which includes Hanlon's razor -- people do often seem to include that when they talk about the principle of charity -- then it makes sense. Making incorrect statements is just ignorance; making worthless statements (as if they were not worthless) can be interpreted as (admittedly quite petty) malice. Or if we want to be extra-charitable, I assume people would rather be the sort of people who get facts wrong, rather than be the sort of people who can't even tell what's worth stating and what isn't.
So that's the reasoning there. Unfortunately when someone gets annoyed at you over this there usually isn't time to explain this...
-Harry
[0]Doing this removes the ambiguity, so this heuristic won't come into play; I'll be aware you meant the true-but-trivial statement.
