I don't know whether scientists got the "might"s and "may"s and "could"s rhetoric from lawyers or lawyers learned them from scientists or the propensity developed independently, but lawyers do exactly the same thing to deny certainty until it becomes second nature to them even in normal speech.
Both groups work with evidence, albeit very different kinds.
Excellent article, thank you! Use of hedging language to convey uncertainty should be a requirement in science, but as you point out, attempting to infer a quantitative level of confidence behind hedging terms can be very difficult. So, ideally, the hedging language should be backed by a an open disclosure of study limitations and an attempt to quantify the level of confidence.
Perhaps the worst offense is when one paper claims something "may" be true, and the next paper claims it has been demonstrated to be true, referring to that first paper. From then on, it is an accepted fact!
Yes, I think that is a great example, when one paper (which may be based on weak evidence) claims an effect may be possible, and then it gets elevated to be probably or “proven” in subsequent work. I often find that tracing citations back is like pulling the thread on a sweater; the whole thing can start to unravel.
It’s a great topic for a future post, how one researcher innocently speculating on a mechanism can over time get transformed into dogma, without solid evidence.
Just an odd observation from me
I don't know whether scientists got the "might"s and "may"s and "could"s rhetoric from lawyers or lawyers learned them from scientists or the propensity developed independently, but lawyers do exactly the same thing to deny certainty until it becomes second nature to them even in normal speech.
Both groups work with evidence, albeit very different kinds.
So are you saying I should get a walrus face tattoo?
Well framed. I have enjoyed this read.
You may benefit!
Excellent article, thank you! Use of hedging language to convey uncertainty should be a requirement in science, but as you point out, attempting to infer a quantitative level of confidence behind hedging terms can be very difficult. So, ideally, the hedging language should be backed by a an open disclosure of study limitations and an attempt to quantify the level of confidence.
Perhaps the worst offense is when one paper claims something "may" be true, and the next paper claims it has been demonstrated to be true, referring to that first paper. From then on, it is an accepted fact!
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Yes, I think that is a great example, when one paper (which may be based on weak evidence) claims an effect may be possible, and then it gets elevated to be probably or “proven” in subsequent work. I often find that tracing citations back is like pulling the thread on a sweater; the whole thing can start to unravel.
It’s a great topic for a future post, how one researcher innocently speculating on a mechanism can over time get transformed into dogma, without solid evidence.