"Nuclear fusion is the basis of all life, and is the process by which all biological creatures evolve and adapt to new environments, through osmosis and self-propagation. I could be completely wrong, though."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think it shows that you're thinking rationally and that your opinion/theory is open to change.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You can still be right even if you admit you might not be.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, this is true. As I replied to a comment above, though, I am not saying whether or not the person is right or wrong. I am saying their statement is rendered invalid, invalid meaning "to render weak or ineffective."

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It isn't invalid just because you admit that you are not certain.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If a person states that they could be completely wrong about something, and give no other validating argument, whatever they prefaced that with is certainly ineffective and weak. If you're at a board meaning, you think the following statement is valid? "Here are the projections for the next quarter. But I could be completely wrong." That's an invalid statement. They could be right. They could be wrong. Regardless, it's invalid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

What do you mean no other validating argument? Is the statement itself not a validating argument? Yes I think that's a valid statement, the admission of not being 100% certain of the future doesn't change the fact that what this person is saying is based on legitimate information and research. If you saw an astounding magic trick that seemed inexplicable and then someone provided a perfectly reasonable speculation as to how it could have been done but ended their explanation with "I could be completely wrong though." do you think that affects the validity of their theory in any way?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

By 'no other validating argument," I mean there is the statement, and then the "could be completely wrong" bit, with no other info lending credence to the statement. My issue is not with the possibility of being wrong, or even with admitting that possibility; it's specifically the language used. More specifically, the word "completely." If, at a board meeting, someone said, "I've looked at all the books, double checked all of the numbers, and I'm still a bit uncertain but here are the projections for the next quarter," their argument is not ineffective. It's not the strongest, but it's not completely ineffective. They're uncertain, but they've done their research. If they said they might be *completely* wrong, the language used belies the notion that their statement is not ground in credibility. There is a difference in your example. You say that the person offers a theory, a speculation. An opinion can be valid even if, in this case, for example, they end by saying that they might be completely wrong. It's only their opinion of how the trick might have been done. If it were a statement, then yes, it would have been invalid.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

A theory is a type of statement.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In your example it's speculative rather than declarative.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

1+1 is 2..... I could be completely wrong though.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

i just learned this in english: this technique is called hedging. actually it makes your audience more willing to listen because you don't come off as an arrogant jerk

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am less willing to listen to someone who says that. People don't want to hear facts from people who aren't confident in what they say, especially if they could be "completely wrong." It's kind of ridiculous, actually.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I view it as the showcasing of an open mind and a lack of stubbornness rather than anything else. All it really is is humility. And the reason it works as a persuasive tactic is because of this and the numbers on your post support this, but I could be completely wrong.

by Anonymous 10 years ago