Diligent scientists will couch their clams with language appropriately cautious. When data is plentiful and robust, confidence runs higher, so little hedging or qualification is necessary.
A perfect example of a careful claim is this article title that employs single quotes:
Great Apes ‘Play’ Tag to Keep Competitive Advantage
In their research on the behavior of gorillas, Dr Davila Ross and her colleagues found -
“Our findings on gorilla play show important similarities with the children’s game of tag. Not only did the gorillas in our study hit their playmates and then run away chased by their playmates, but they also switched their roles when hit so the chaser became the chased and vice versa. [emphases mine]
And this single sentence just about illustrates the point perfectly -
Scientists cannot categorically state that gorillas play tag but those observed show the same behaviour as humans.
Well done.
Personally, this seems nearly overly-cautious, but better to err in that direction.
It is my opinion that being a critical thinker should not consist of only making negative comments. Noting and applauding the positive is important, too. And so I try to remember to do that. Consider this post an instance of such.
Leave a Reply