In February 2022, I posted an article, Making the Most of It, wherein I explored the abuses of most and almost all. Last week, I texted a friend this statement:
Some implies a small minority of a whole while the entirety of the whole still qualifies.
This realization about some underscores a vast opportunity for miscommunication. I consider it more duplicitous than most and almost all.
For example, some allows for a thief to honestly state that he stole a small portion of a bank’s money when, in fact, he took all of it.
Just now, I am consulting several sources for the side effects of stevia. Similar statements are common in all of the articles, but these two are from just one:
[1] The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers stevia leaf extract safe for consumption, and it is unlikely to cause side effects in most people.
[2] Stevia does not cause side effects in most people. However, some may experience the following when consuming products sweetened with stevia:
This is a common practice in many articles, including research articles. I’m sure (often said when someone is actually unsure) we can all assume the implied message. Can we really?
Note that we have what I term compound duplicity in both statements above. In #1, safe is used. Note that safety is a loose probability. Then we have unlikely (another loose probability) and most. I typically would not, but I would be on firm ground to conclude that stevia is likely to cause side effects in slightly more than 49% of people.
Then, in #2, we have both some and most… another compound duplicity.
These loosey-goosey descriptors are problematic for my writing. In the early years of my career, my most influential mentor often chided me for employing “all encompassing language.” He insisted—rightly so—that I lost credibility with language that expressed my beliefs about something as absolutes. I needed to temper my statements with descriptors like most or often (another descriptor not to be trusted) to allow for a crack in my veneer of seemingly unassailable proclamations. This would make my statements appear more reasonable.
Now what?
I say that all instances of discrimination on the basis of vaccination status in employment, education, or participation in any publicly advertised activity are illegal in the US. Not some, all. Not should be illegal but are illegal. And I am prepared to defend this position:
https://howtosee2020.com/discrimination
I’d rather have a strong position. No one wants to listen to “reasonable” people anyway. I dare people to contradict me. They know they cannot win.