That’s cool! I wonder if they suffer from the same ambiguity as epistemic adjectives in English though* (which would suggest that we should skip straight to numerical assignments: probabilities or belief functions).
Anecdotally, it’s quite tiring to put credence levels on everything. When I started my blog I began by putting a probability on all major claims (and even wrote a script to hide this behind a popup to minimise aesthetic damage). But I soon stopped.
For important things (like Forum posts?) it’s probably worth the effort, but even a document-level confidence statement is a norm with only spotty adoption on here.
Anecdotally, it’s quite tiring to put credence levels on everything. When I started my blog I began by putting a probability on all major claims (and even wrote a script to hide this behind a popup to minimise aesthetic damage). But I soon stopped.
Interesting! Could you provide links to some of these blog posts?
Something similar to explicit credence levels on claims is how Arbital has inline images of probability distributions. Users can vote on a certain probability and contribute to the probability distribution.
I think one very cool feature of having something like this embedded in the language is that you learn to do it automatically. I can think about a couple of examples now: - Cases: in English, Catalan or Spanish, one does not indicate the case of a substantive, but in German it is done. This makes learning German more difficult, but if you are native or after practising a lot, it becomes automatic.
- Directions: I recall having read about a language that does not give relative directions (right, left) but absolute ones (East, West). That sounds like a very difficult thing to do for us, but for the people who speak that language it comes natural.
My guess is that if we’d fluently speak Maltés, it would be just as natural for us to indicate the degree of certainty. And that would be very cool :-)
That’s cool! I wonder if they suffer from the same ambiguity as epistemic adjectives in English though* (which would suggest that we should skip straight to numerical assignments: probabilities or belief functions).
Anecdotally, it’s quite tiring to put credence levels on everything. When I started my blog I began by putting a probability on all major claims (and even wrote a script to hide this behind a popup to minimise aesthetic damage). But I soon stopped.
For important things (like Forum posts?) it’s probably worth the effort, but even a document-level confidence statement is a norm with only spotty adoption on here.
https://hbr.org/2018/07/if-you-say-something-is-likely-how-likely-do-people-think-it-is
Interesting! Could you provide links to some of these blog posts?
Seems I did this in exactly 3 posts before getting annoyed.
Something similar to explicit credence levels on claims is how Arbital has inline images of probability distributions. Users can vote on a certain probability and contribute to the probability distribution.
I think one very cool feature of having something like this embedded in the language is that you learn to do it automatically. I can think about a couple of examples now:
- Cases: in English, Catalan or Spanish, one does not indicate the case of a substantive, but in German it is done. This makes learning German more difficult, but if you are native or after practising a lot, it becomes automatic.
- Directions: I recall having read about a language that does not give relative directions (right, left) but absolute ones (East, West). That sounds like a very difficult thing to do for us, but for the people who speak that language it comes natural.
My guess is that if we’d fluently speak Maltés, it would be just as natural for us to indicate the degree of certainty. And that would be very cool :-)