Does "we fail reliably" mean "most of times we fail"?

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, English As A Second Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Well, Oxford explains "reliably" as:
In a consistently good or accurate way:
few of these paintings can be reliably dated.

To say "we fail in a consistently good or accurate way" sounds a bit weird. It seems to be an oxymoron. Is it so?

Context:

There is no question that human beings regularly fail to achieve the norms of
rationality. But we do not merely fail-we fail reliably. We can, in other words, use reason to understand, quantify, and predict our violations of its norms. This has moral
implications. We know, for instance, that the choice to undergo a risky medical procedure
will be heavily influenced by whether its possible outcomes are framed in terms of
survival rates or mortality rates.

-Sam Harris

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 593 • Replies: 9

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

In addition, in the context above, " whether its possible outcomes are framed in terms of survival rates or mortality rates" appears to be redundant to me. Because any possible outcomes are limited by/framed in terms of survival rates or mortality rates." It is not necessary to say "whether its possible outcomes are framed in terms of survival rates or mortality rates."

0 Replies

1. When he says we fail to be rational 'reliably' he means that we fail to be rational in a predictable, consistent way.

2. When he says that 'choice to undergo a risky medical procedure
will be heavily influenced by whether its possible outcomes are framed in terms of survival rates or mortality rates' he means that when (e.g.) a doctor describes, to a patient, the possible outcomes of a risky medical procedure, if the doctor says "50% of patients survive this procedure', the patient is more likely to agree than if the doctor says '50% of patients do not survive this procedure'.

1 Reply

By using "reliably" I think Harris is saying "in a predictable way."

The American Heritage Dictionary has its second definition as: " Yielding the same or compatible results in different clinical experiments or statistical trials."

The last sentence is about the the choice to undergo risky medical procedures being put in terms of either survival rates or mortality rates, that is, optimistic or pessimistic viewpoints.

0 Replies

@Tes yeux noirs,

Interesting.
Thank you both.

0 Replies

The author went on:

Quote:

Of course, the twentieth century delivered some unprecedented horrors. But those of us who live in the developed world are becoming increasingly disturbed by our capacity to do one another harm. We are less tolerant of "collateral damage" in times of war-undoubtedly because we now see images of it -and we are less comfortable with ideologies that demonize whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction.

Do you think that the grammatical structure of "justifying their abuse or outright destruction" is very clear?
It seems able to misleading: we...justifying their abuse or outright destruction.
If the author wrote " ideologies that demonize whole populations and justify their abuse or outright destruction", there would be no misleading. But the new structure would sound a bit awkward.

What do you think?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Do you think that the grammatical structure of "justifying their abuse or outright destruction" is very clear?

To me it is absolutely clear and not misleading in any way.

1 Reply

@Tes yeux noirs,

Tes yeux noirs wrote:

Quote:
Do you think that the grammatical structure of "justifying their abuse or outright destruction" is very clear?

To me it is absolutely clear and not misleading in any way.

Thanks.
Do you judge it from logic?
Or it is clear both in logic and grammar?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Original: we are less comfortable with ideologies that demonize whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction. Using 'justifying' (gerund form) makes clear that what follows the comma is an statement of what 'demonize' includes. If you wrote 'and justifying...' then the 'and' would be introducing something additional.

Consider:

I set light to John's house, killing him and his wife.

I set light to Johns house, and killed him and his wife.

1 Reply

@Tes yeux noirs,

Excellent!

0 Replies

Does "we fail reliably" mean "most of times we fail"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know