Anonymous Conserative writes, "Again, we think differently. I array possibilities, trying to see which are likely and not, you are more decisive, picking the most likely and going with it."
False. I think probabilistically as well, and better than he does. His application of Bayesian logic is sloppy, emotion bridging gaps created by info overwhelm.
I don't even kid myself that I'm thinking quantitatively unless I actually consider a baseline. Until then, I simply handle multiple thought-headings via a rational algorithm, without attempting a premature synthesis. In other words, I think with Cyborganize rather than a scrambling amnesiac inner-monologue.
I don't write equivocal paragraphs unless precise knowledge offsets the reduced legibility. However, I track multiple possibilities easily in Cyborganize, as independent headings.
Why do readers assume that the simplest, childlike grammar indicates absolute certainty? If I wish to convey absolute certainty, I add qualifiers to my sentences such as "absolutely certain".
The default assumption for simple statements about reality is that they describe the expected outcome. The expected outcome is merely the most likely. It may not even occur the majority of the time, if there are more than two possible outcomes.
As a philosopher, I understand that English is as ill-suited to describe reality as Newtonian physics is to describe quarks. I treat my sentences like donkeys pulling a cart, and don't whip them without good cause.