Something Iâm trying to do in my comments recently is âhedge only onceâ; e.g. instead of âI think X seems like itâs Yâ, you pick either one of âI think X is Yâ or âX seems like itâs Yâ. There is a difference in meaning, but often one of the latter feels sufficient to convey what I wanted to say anyway.
This is part of a broader sense I have that hedging serves an important purpose but is also obstructive to good writing, especially concision, and the fact that itâs a particular feature of EA/ârat writing can be alienating to other audiences, even though I think it comes from a self-awareness /â self-critical instinct that I think is a positive feature of the community.
I was just thinking about this a few days ago when I was flying for the holidays. Outside the plane was a sign that said something like
Warning: Jet fuel emits chemicals that may increase the risk of cancer.
And I was thinking about whether this was a justified double-hedge. The author of that sign has a subjective belief that exposure to those chemicals increases the probability that you get cancer, so you could say âmay give you cancerâ or âincreases the risk of cancerâ. On the other hand, perhaps the double-hedge is reasonable in cases like this because thereâs some uncertainty about whether a dangerous thing will cause harm, and thereâs also uncertainty about whether a particular thing is dangerous, so I supposed itâs reasonable to say âmay increase the risk of cancerâ. It means âthere is some probability that this increases the probability that you get cancer, but also some probability that it has no effect on cancer rates.â
Something Iâm trying to do in my comments recently is âhedge only onceâ; e.g. instead of âI think X seems like itâs Yâ, you pick either one of âI think X is Yâ or âX seems like itâs Yâ. There is a difference in meaning, but often one of the latter feels sufficient to convey what I wanted to say anyway.
This is part of a broader sense I have that hedging serves an important purpose but is also obstructive to good writing, especially concision, and the fact that itâs a particular feature of EA/ârat writing can be alienating to other audiences, even though I think it comes from a self-awareness /â self-critical instinct that I think is a positive feature of the community.
I was just thinking about this a few days ago when I was flying for the holidays. Outside the plane was a sign that said something like
And I was thinking about whether this was a justified double-hedge. The author of that sign has a subjective belief that exposure to those chemicals increases the probability that you get cancer, so you could say âmay give you cancerâ or âincreases the risk of cancerâ. On the other hand, perhaps the double-hedge is reasonable in cases like this because thereâs some uncertainty about whether a dangerous thing will cause harm, and thereâs also uncertainty about whether a particular thing is dangerous, so I supposed itâs reasonable to say âmay increase the risk of cancerâ. It means âthere is some probability that this increases the probability that you get cancer, but also some probability that it has no effect on cancer rates.â
I like this as an example of a case where you wouldnât want to combine these two different forms of uncertainty