Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_s | Hacker News Reader

I use "I think" it to distinguish widely agreed upon facts from my own conclusions.

[I think] That just makes it sound like you lack confidence.

That's the point. If something is an established fact, I simply state it. Often these are uncontroversial things that have been demonstrated in some way. If I qualify my statement, that's because it deserves qualification. "I think" implies "I believe this to be true, but I do not know it to be true." So, yes, I lack total confidence in such statements.

It's also a way to differentiate objective statements from subjective statements: I think Metallica is a great band.

When you're writing about subjectives, the "I think" is always implied: why state it explicitly?

Clarity.

No, because the 'I think' does not mean what you think it means. You can't take it out of its social context, which is to inform people that you assign a lower certainty to the next thing you are going to say. (Of course, you could say all that, but that would make most conversations very pointless and annoying, as I can say from personal experience.)

You could say "I think the economy will be the most important issue in the next election", but you could also say "The economy will probably be the most important issue in the next election," which sounds clearer, as well as less refutable.

Because how are people supposed to know you are making a subjective/qualitative judgement? It's too easy to mislead people, and too many people profit from taking advantage of that.

A true argument can stand on its own.

They know by context. "Metallica is a great band" is obviously a subjective opinion and unprovable. It's the same as "I think Metallica is a great band" but with fewer useless words. This isn't misleading.

If I say something potentially provable that I am unsure of but claim is a fact ("Metallica is the best-selling band of all time"), this would be misleading, and I would be taking advantage of my audience.

You're giving too much credit to things that people widely agree on.

Going by majority vote, intelligent design is a fact.

I discriminate based on who does the agreeing.

I believe the concept of majority rules has worked well for America. Some would disagree of course but then they are just the minority.

There are other ways to achieve the same distinction. Consider "I conclude / posit / propose that ..." In general though, that distinction can be made from context. I would usually assume that content is an original thought unless stated otherwise, e.g. with a citation.

I go for "I assert" because it sounds aggressive, but it shows that I know that I haven't made my case yet. In the case of "Metallica is a great band," I'd just say it, though. Musical taste is obviously subjective.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com