Hacker News Reader

Comment by torben-friis | Hacker News Reader

>Something can be simultaneously "misleading" and either true or false. Which category should something go in if it's "mostly false"?

Disagree. The definition of misleading is a true fact that is presented in a way to lead you to a false conclusion.

Example: "Most good engineers are male". It is true as a consequence of most engineers being male in general, but it leads the reader to a potential false implication that an average man is better than an average woman.

This does not invalid your point though. Things can be true and misleading.

View on HN

Isn't this still assuming we can even determine what is true or false?

Newtonian physics is false, but it works well enough we teach it in college. But our best models of physics are currently in disagreement, so can we even say they are true? Given the replication crisis, especially in social sciences, how many of peer reviewed findings can be called true? Even experimental results can be false (consider studies that found FTL neutrinos, which were rejected as an error in the experiment, and which was eventually confirmed but it took quite a lot of work and in a softer field than physics with a claim less absurd than FTL, would have likely long been accepted as a true finding).

Even in math, basic statements aren't really true or false, but more a question of "given these axioms, can we prove or disprove it" noting that we have different systems with different axioms. If we are talking basic sets, most people are using naive set theory which is inherently contradictory, which means that notions like true or false probably can't be considered well defined.

Newtonian physics doesn't just work well enough for education. It provides an incredibly accurate and precise model of the world except at extremes. The majority of engineering does not necessitate using theories of relativity. Both theories are incomplete models approximating reality and are very far from being false.

True and False in general communication means based on best available evidence and expertise statement contains no obvious contradictions or falsehoods based on an optimistic parsing of meaning language and intent. Notably this leaves out misleading or missing data because those concerns are separate from truth and falsehood.

E.g. if I say the earth is round we optimistically parse round to include oblate spheroid and rate it true.

If I say that the earth is flat we rate it as false because there is no reasonable interpretation possible other than confusion or malice.

> The definition of misleading is a true fact that is presented in a way to lead you to a false conclusion.

According to Merriem-Webster, which defines "mislead" as the following:

  1. (transitive verb) to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

  2. (intransitive verb) to lead astray; give a wrong impression

Presenting a "true fact" is optional when misleading someone.

Uh, you seem to be right. I can't check oxford to confirm because there's a paywall, apparently.

The mental model I've always been taught is:

False, well intended -> mistake

False, bad intention -> lie

True, bad intention -> misleading

Bad intention, regardless of truth -> deceitful

The problem of classifying all bad intentioned statements as misleading is that it leaves you without a way to express "true +bad intention". While for generic bad intentioned statements regardless of truth we already have a word (deceit).

> but it leads the reader to a potential false implication that an average man is better than an average woman.

I think that's _you_ turning the statement into something much broader than intended. The claim is about engineers and you're jumping from "men are better than women in engineering" to "men are better overall."

To give a related example, "Most good NBA players are black." I don't think anyone would bother trying to couch this in a bunch of "well, for all we know that's just a function of more NBA players being black than white" arguments, nor would anyone be lead to think "the average black man is better than the average white man" as a result of that statement. I _do_ agree however that there are some people who see rather narrowly-defined statements and turn them into something they're not...

>I think that's _you_ turning the statement into something much broader than intended.

My point is that it is possible for a reader to turn it that way, for a variety of reasons (lack of understanding of statistics, preexisting biases, or whatever). And that getting a reader to mistakenly generalize is the purpose of a misleading statement.

To mislead is to direct into a falsehood by implication even though the literally expressed facts are all true; the writer's bad intentions are necessary to qualify something as misleading I'd say, for the same reason that not all false statements are lies because to be a lie the speaker must know the statement is false and still use it. There are probably much better examples than the one I came up with on the fly, though.

Context is everything. If the wider discussion was about how men are better than women, and in that context it was shown that "Most good engineers are male", it would be natural to draw the wrong conclusion.

At least Gemini 3.5 is fair about it:

    Classify this claim: "Most good engineers are male."
    Misleading

    Classify this claim: "Most bad engineers are male."
    Misleading

And not particularly racially sensitive

    Classify this claim: "Most good NBA players are black."
    True

    Classify this claim: "Most good NHL players are white."
    True

It explained it is more confident when assessing the small, highly quantifiable population of sports professionals vs a very large, diverse population of "engineers".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com