Different Kinds of "False"

DIFFERENT KINDS OF "FALSE"

 

When considering who deserves your vote in any election you are bound to encounter "False" statements (those not reasonably considered true based on current evidence). But there are many different kinds of "False" and it's crucial to understand the differences.

 

1) Lies

 

2) Incompetence

 

3) Errors

 

4) Deception

 

5) Broken Promises - further split between Failures & Betrayals.

 

6) Predictions

 

7) Counter-factuals

 

Anyone who has taken a college-level course on Logic or Semantics can skip this post. Many other people may read this and consider it completely intuitive or even obvious. This is for everyone else (maybe someone you know who isn't likely to read this).

 

I will be as non-partisan as possible here…

 

1) "Saying something false when the speaker knows it to be false" - This is the most egregious kind of false and is best described as a "LIAR TELLING A LIE".

 

2) "Saying something false when the speaker, erroneously, believes it to be true AND he reasonably should be expected to know that it's false." - This is the second most egregious kind of false and is best described as an "INCOMPETENT PERSON SPREADING MISINFORMATION".

 

3) "Saying something false when the speaker, erroneously, believes it to be true and the listener has no valid reason to believe the speaker should know the truth." - This is simply an "IGNORANT PERSON MAKING AN ERROR" and should be forgiven so long as the speaker diligently makes an effort to stop the spread of his misinformation.

 

Related to objectively disprovable falsehoods are "Deceptions".

 

4) "Saying something that leaves a reasonable listener with an impression or inference that is false." -  That is a "DECEPTION" (regardless of the fact that the statement might be "technically accurate"). Most human language is imprecise because we are a combination of lazy and striving for efficiency. In order to speak without any ambiguity then all communication would take many times longer than they do now (and require a level of education and intellectual rigor well beyond that of the average American). It's simply not practical to be that precise all the time. So some leeway must be possible.

 

I think the measure of egregiousness of a given speaker's deception should be the "benefit the speaker gets from the naturally erroneous inference made by a reasonable listener". If the speaker does well from the erroneous inference then he should not be given the benefit of the doubt and instead should be admonished for the self-serving "Deception" (which is just as bad as outright "Lying"). Whereas if the speaker gets no benefit from the erroneous inference then there is less culpability and it should be treated as either "Incompetence" (if the speaker should've known better) or an "Error" (if the speaker couldn't be reasonably expected to know better).

 

Separate from those are three more categories "BROKEN PROMISES" and "PREDICTIONS" and "COUNTERFACTUALS" (the definition used in Philosophy & Logic).

 

5) Everyone knows what a "Broken Promise" is. Culpability in the broken promise is entirely dependent on the circumstances. It is, in any event, not a "Lie". And, at worst, a broken promise is only a "FAILURE" (provided the promise-maker didn't actively pursue an action contrary to the promise, which if he did, would constitute a "BETRAYAL").

 

6) Predictions are simply stories until the results come in. A prediction or forecast is, by definition, unprovable at the current time. Later, with the benefit of hindsight, you can test the accuracy of the prediction. But in the moment a prediction simply can't be held as fact. At best, a prediction can be considered relative to the predictor's previous track record with predictions. If the predictor has previously made a lot of "bad calls" relative to his "good calls" then his current predictions must be viewed with skepticism. Don't forget that anything can be created in a fiction. Reality need play no role until the prediction is either confirmed or rejected by the subsequently encountered objective evidence.

 

7) "Counterfactuals" are simply the fictitious "woulda happened" timelines in a parallel universe. Less valuable than "predictions", counterfactuals are stories that never have to interact with reality. Counterfactuals are actively unhelpful in political debates because any side can make up any fantasy they like of how things would've been better if their politician was in office or, alternatively, that things would've been worse had the opposition had its way.

 

CONCLUSION: Let's stick to the evidence and reasonable applications of logic.



.