info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The use of "credible" and "persuasive" confuses Supreme Court
46 views
Skip to first unread message
John Doe
Jul 27, 2021, 6:42:31 PM7/27/21
to
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-1155
Click on "ORAL ARGUMENT". The first counselor's argument is the best part.
Some of the judges act confused, they don't understand the difference
between "credible" and "persuasive" as it's used in the law.
Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the authors
might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I was
abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat tire."
Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive, just that
it's possible.
The counsel sums it up pretty well at one point... "So I think the first
question is, is the witness credible? Is he even capable of being believed,
or is it just obvious that he's lying? And the next question is, well, is
the witness persuasive?" Pretty simple really, even if it's bad English.
Some of the judges act VERY confused.
--
I'm a regular listener to Supreme Court oral argument. Having defined a very
common English word, I love semantics!
Steve Hayes
Jul 28, 2021, 6:39:27 AM7/28/21
to
On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:
> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>
> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
> just that it's possible.
I see a clear difference between those.
> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>
> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
> just that it's possible.
What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
"convincing".
To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
you convince someone that something is the case.
But not everyone seems to use them in that way.
--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
micky
Aug 2, 2021, 11:13:07 AM8/2/21
to
In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:39:22 -0000 (UTC), Steve
My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than persuasive. After
someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.
--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.
someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.
--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.
Rich Ulrich
Aug 2, 2021, 11:52:01 PM8/2/21
to
On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 11:13:02 -0400, micky <NONONO...@fmguy.com>
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:39:22 -0000 (UTC), Steve
>Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
>>> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>>>
>>> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
>>> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
>>> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
>>> just that it's possible.
>>
>>I see a clear difference between those.
>>
>>What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
>>"convincing".
>>
>>To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
>>you convince someone that something is the case.
>>
>>But not everyone seems to use them in that way.
>
>My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than persuasive. After
>someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
>persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
>to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.
I'll go with, "convincing is stronger than persuasive."
Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts
for meaning of a couple of similar words, "specious" and
"plausible" which once were adjectives to hope for.
I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused
both words in exercises of self-praise. I understand
"specious" as looking good but being false. "Plausible"
is what I might have used in place of "credible" as
described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
not yet deserving belief.
--
Rich Ulrich
wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:39:22 -0000 (UTC), Steve
>Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
>>> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>>>
>>> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
>>> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
>>> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
>>> just that it's possible.
>>
>>I see a clear difference between those.
>>
>>What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
>>"convincing".
>>
>>To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
>>you convince someone that something is the case.
>>
>>But not everyone seems to use them in that way.
>
>My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than persuasive. After
>someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
>persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
>to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.
Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts
for meaning of a couple of similar words, "specious" and
"plausible" which once were adjectives to hope for.
I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused
both words in exercises of self-praise. I understand
"specious" as looking good but being false. "Plausible"
is what I might have used in place of "credible" as
described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
not yet deserving belief.
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter Moylan
Aug 3, 2021, 12:35:24 AM8/3/21
to
On 03/08/21 14:51, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts for meaning
> of a couple of similar words, "specious" and "plausible" which once
> were adjectives to hope for.
>
> I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused both words
> in exercises of self-praise. I understand "specious" as looking good
> but being false. "Plausible" is what I might have used in place of
> "credible" as described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
> not yet deserving belief.
Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts for meaning
> of a couple of similar words, "specious" and "plausible" which once
> were adjectives to hope for.
>
> I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused both words
> in exercises of self-praise. I understand "specious" as looking good
> but being false. "Plausible" is what I might have used in place of
> "credible" as described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
> not yet deserving belief.
but probably false"? It looks to me as if current usage has completely
driven that meaning out.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Mark Brader
Aug 3, 2021, 2:33:14 PM8/3/21
to
Peter Moylan:
usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
definition given is 4a:
# Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
# probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
# spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
--
Mark Brader "When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- Diane Holt
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> but probably false"?
I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> but probably false"?
usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
definition given is 4a:
# Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
# probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
# spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
--
Mark Brader "When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- Diane Holt
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Moylan
Aug 3, 2021, 8:54:38 PM8/3/21
to
On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
> Peter Moylan:
>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> definition given is 4a:
>
> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> Peter Moylan:
>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> definition given is 4a:
>
> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
be skilful at constructing specious arguments. You need a plausible
manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
their life savings.
Mark Brader
Aug 3, 2021, 10:07:17 PM8/3/21
to
Peter Moylan:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?
Mark Brader:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>># Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>># probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>># spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
Peter Moylan:
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>># Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>># probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>># spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
> Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments. You need a plausible
> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> their life savings.
Which is true whether "plausible" has its "old meaning" or not.
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments. You need a plausible
> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> their life savings.
--
Mark Brader | "Every year this part of our job gets easier.
Toronto | Between Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr, people are
m...@vex.net | surveilling *themselves*." --Phil Coulson (Jeffrey Bell)
Janet
Aug 4, 2021, 7:24:45 AM8/4/21
to
In article <IMydneyim-h8FpT8...@giganews.com>, m...@vex.net
says...
Google "he's very plausible"; multiple examples refer to convincing
conmen and liars.
Janet
says...
>
> Peter Moylan:
> > Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> > but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage.
I think it still does.
> Peter Moylan:
> > Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> > but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage.
Google "he's very plausible"; multiple examples refer to convincing
conmen and liars.
Janet
Ken Blake
Aug 4, 2021, 11:08:26 AM8/4/21
to
On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?
>>
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>
> Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
Yes.
> On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?
>>
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>
> Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
> You need a plausible
> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> their life savings.
--
Ken
Rich Ulrich
Aug 4, 2021, 11:53:17 AM8/4/21
to
in my post that brought up the word.
But I can see it as being "former" and/or ironical, while someone
says that the "actual" meaning is good.
The conman can be supremely convincing. At what point, or
after what consideration, does the falsity become clear?
- I was surprised a few weeks ago when I learned that
"purple prose" started out as praise of that sort of rhetoric.
--
Rich Ulrich
Kerr-Mudd, John
Aug 4, 2021, 12:48:53 PM8/4/21
to
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan:
> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> >>> but probably false"?
> >>
> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> >> definition given is 4a:
> >>
> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
> >
> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>
I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan:
> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> >>> but probably false"?
> >>
> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> >> definition given is 4a:
> >>
> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
> >
> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>
https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>
I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).
Gosh; wrong again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(disambiguation)
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > You need a plausible
> > manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> > their life savings.
>
>
> Bialystock (Zero Mostel) was very good at that.
>
>
> --
> Ken
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
Ken Blake
Aug 4, 2021, 1:07:02 PM8/4/21
to
On 8/4/2021 9:48 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> >> Peter Moylan:
>> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> >>> but probably false"?
>> >>
>> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> >> definition given is 4a:
>> >>
>> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>> >
>> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
>> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>>
> I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
> https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
> shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>
>
> I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).
As you probably know
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
> Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> >> Peter Moylan:
>> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> >>> but probably false"?
>> >>
>> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> >> definition given is 4a:
>> >>
>> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>> >
>> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
>> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>>
> I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
> https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
> shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>
>
> I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).
The one-L Lama, he's a priest,
the two-L LLama, he's a beast,
and I will bet a silk pajama
there isn't any three-L LLLama.
But you may not know that Nash was wrong. Three-alarmers are common at
fire stations.
--
Ken
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Aug 5, 2021, 10:38:18 AM8/5/21
to
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:06:57 -0700, Ken Blake <k...@invalidemail.com>
A three-L LLLama would be ambiguous. Is it a priestly beast or a beastly
priest?
>
>But you may not know that Nash was wrong. Three-alarmers are common at
>fire stations.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
priest?
>
>But you may not know that Nash was wrong. Three-alarmers are common at
>fire stations.
--
(in alt.english.usage)
Quinn C
Aug 5, 2021, 12:57:46 PM8/5/21
to
* Ken Blake:
Funny that you'd write that on the very day I watched the Muppet Show
with Zero Mostel. It was one of his last appearances; by the time it
aired, he was dead.
I now hear some say that governor Cuomo is the type.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
with Zero Mostel. It was one of his last appearances; by the time it
aired, he was dead.
I now hear some say that governor Cuomo is the type.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Anton Shepelev
Aug 9, 2021, 5:07:24 AM8/9/21
to
micky:
> My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than per-
nal influence, whereas conviction grows within oneself, even
if with a gentle, Socratic help. One is persuladed by ap-
peal to emotions, passions, and fears, whereas conviction
comes from reason. A sales speech persuades, a pholosophical
treatice convinces.
I now see that 1913's Webster is more convicing than I:
Conviction respects soley matters of belief or faith;
persuasion respects matters of belief or practice. Con-
viction respects our most important duties; persuasion is
frequently applied to matters of indifference. --Crabb.
Conviction is the result of the [operation of the] under-
standing; persuasion, of the will. Conviction is a neces-
sity of the mind, persuasion an acquiescence of the in-
clination. --C. J. Smith. Persuasion often induces men
to act in opposition to their conviction of duty.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
> My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than per-
> suasive. After someone hear's convincing argumments, he's
> convinced. After persuasive, he's just leaning farther
> toward the side argued. I'll try to bone up on this be-
> convinced. After persuasive, he's just leaning farther
> fore my next SC oral argument.
In my opinion, persuasion is due more to forceful and exter-
nal influence, whereas conviction grows within oneself, even
if with a gentle, Socratic help. One is persuladed by ap-
peal to emotions, passions, and fears, whereas conviction
comes from reason. A sales speech persuades, a pholosophical
treatice convinces.
I now see that 1913's Webster is more convicing than I:
Conviction respects soley matters of belief or faith;
persuasion respects matters of belief or practice. Con-
viction respects our most important duties; persuasion is
frequently applied to matters of indifference. --Crabb.
Conviction is the result of the [operation of the] under-
standing; persuasion, of the will. Conviction is a neces-
sity of the mind, persuasion an acquiescence of the in-
clination. --C. J. Smith. Persuasion often induces men
to act in opposition to their conviction of duty.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Rich Ulrich
Aug 9, 2021, 11:38:40 AM8/9/21
to
"That's persuasive, but I'm not sure I'm convinced." -
suggests degrees, rather than categories.
--
Rich Ulrich
Anton Shepelev
Aug 17, 2021, 4:11:47 AM8/17/21
to
Steve Hayes:
> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
> persuaded him to wash them.
Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
all.
> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
> persuaded him to wash them.
Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
all.
Snidely
Aug 17, 2021, 4:20:14 AM8/17/21
to
Remember when Anton Shepelev bragged outrageously? That was Tuesday:
be the one to the washing. Teenagers do that a lot.
/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
> Steve Hayes:
>
>> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
>> persuaded him to wash them.
>
> Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
> all.
He can agree that the dishes need washing, but disagree that he should
>
>> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
>> persuaded him to wash them.
>
> Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
> all.
be the one to the washing. Teenagers do that a lot.
/dps
--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>
0 new messages