5 ms·

Please elaborate, I'm not a native speaker and I don't see how it can be interpreted differently in this context.

by a_imho 9y ago

jamesrcole 9y ago
I'm a native speaker and I don't think there are multiple interpretations.
- solipsism 9y ago
  The fact that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists should make it clear that there after different degrees of belief.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    Saying "I believe you" means "I believe what you said is true". There are no interpretations that are contrary to that. Yes, you can modulate the strength of your belief but they're all beliefs that the statement is true. The great-grandparent comment (the one whose meaning this discussion was about) was implying something other than belief in the truth of the statement.
- odonnellryan 9y ago
  Really? US? "I believe you" can mean you believe what the person is saying WITHOUT it meaning you take it to be 100% factual. In this circumstance, it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. But you ARE giving them the comfort of "trust."
  - hueving 9y ago
    When it comes to an accusation, you can't simultaneously believe the victim and clear the defendant of guilt.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      Of course you can. You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set - in criminal matters that would be "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty."
      - odonnellryan 9y ago
        100% on-point, but I'd caution about bringing judgement into these matters. Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints. Your attitude towards them -- listening etc -- is a completely orthogonal matter to whether you believe in the truth of their claims. There seems to be this wishy-washy notion of "belief" that's causing confusion in this thread, where "believing" is equated to "not being judgemental".
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        > You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set That's not "belief". Believing X means thinking that X is true. What you're really talking about is taking an agnostic position.
      - hueving 9y ago
        If you believe someone, that means you think what they said is true. In this mindset you've setup a guilty until proven innocent framework because in your mind you already believe to be true any accusations leveled at someone. When someone levels an accusation, the only belief you should hold is that it's a serious accusation that needs further investigation because someone has risked a lot by leveling it. Believing anything that comes out of someone's mouth to be true when there are massive consequences to their words is unethical. >It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty." You cannot believe someone to have done something and personally believe that the person is not guilty. They may not be guilty under the framework of the law, but you are still treating them as guilty in your mind. If you worked with the accused and you had a strong sense of ethics, you would never treat that person the same way again, even though the accusation may have been proven to be fabricated. It is unethical to take accusations at face value that will ruin people's lives.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    > it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. If they say "X touched me inappropriately" and you say "I believe you" meaning "I trust you", then that means "I trust that you are telling the truth". (Actually, what I think you're really talking about is a kind of social nicety, what is in reality a white lie. Where people will say "I believe you" as like a kind of gesture of good faith towards a person. Like indicating that you're not going to be biased against them. But it's not actually a statement of belief. In other words, it does not have a meaning in terms of a type of belief).
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      Well, yes. The context is a person coming to you in an office, not a courtroom :)
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        well, as obstacle1 has explained below, then you're not actually talking about beliefs. (which was what the original discussion did concern). E.g. in some of these situations you are actually lying to the person (in a mild way) and not actually expressing a belief at all. An analogy. I might say "I went to the store", but actually I was at a friend's place, and I said this because I wanted to come across a certain way. It is not that the statement "I went to the store" has these two interpretations. The notion of going to a friend's place isn't a different interpretation of that statement, it is just that I'm not telling the truth.
        odonnellryan 9y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. I can believe you without being absolutely convicted that you're accurate or correct. I can believe your testimony to me in good faith, but understand it may not be accurate.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > I can believe you without being absolutely convicted that you're accurate or correct. Of course - and that means you still think (to some degree of conviction) it is true. The original context that spawned this discussion was implying some sort of interpretation that did not involve a belief of some sort in the truth of the statement. > I can believe your testimony to me in good faith, but understand it may not be accurate. If someone says "X touched me inappropriately", and you respond "I believe you" then this response means "I believe your statement" not "I believe your testimony was in good faith". (Or it is a kind of white lie, as discussed elsewhere in this thread).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
odonnellryan 9y ago
It's just contextual. It can mean: "I believe what you're saying, so I will follow up." Or, "I believe what you're saying, so I will take immediate action on those persons."
binocarlos 9y ago
An example (from a case I was involved as a witness in only last week). A jury must be 100% confident that the evidence presented confirms their beliefs. The judge will say "do not decide based on if you believe it happened but instead on the evidence presented". There a world where the jury can believe it happened (and deliberate for 4.5 hours) but still come out with not guilty because the physical evidence is not there. In historical sexual abuse cases (of which this was one) - the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service here in the UK) will not take on the case if they did not think there was a good chance of winning and yet the only real evidence here was witness testimony and no forensics. It didn't matter that the jury obviously believed it happened - they did their job and realised that was only an opinion and not backed by evidence.

Please elaborate, I'm not a native speaker and I don't see how it can be interpreted differently in this context.

by a_imho 9y ago

Please elaborate, I'm not a native speaker and I don't see how it can be interpreted differently in this context.

jamesrcole 9y ago

I'm a native speaker and I don't think there are multiple interpretations.

solipsism 9y ago
The fact that the phrase "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists should make it clear that there after different degrees of belief.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  Saying "I believe you" means "I believe what you said is true". There are no interpretations that are contrary to that. Yes, you can modulate the strength of your belief but they're all beliefs that the statement is true. The great-grandparent comment (the one whose meaning this discussion was about) was implying something other than belief in the truth of the statement.
odonnellryan 9y ago
Really? US? "I believe you" can mean you believe what the person is saying WITHOUT it meaning you take it to be 100% factual. In this circumstance, it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. But you ARE giving them the comfort of "trust."
- hueving 9y ago
  When it comes to an accusation, you can't simultaneously believe the victim and clear the defendant of guilt.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    Of course you can. You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set - in criminal matters that would be "beyond all reasonable doubt". It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty."
    - odonnellryan 9y ago
      100% on-point, but I'd caution about bringing judgement into these matters. Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints.
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Believing a colleague when they come to you with ANY complaint does not mean you're going to pass judgement, or you even have to. It means listening and doing that in a way that does not discourage future complaints. Your attitude towards them -- listening etc -- is a completely orthogonal matter to whether you believe in the truth of their claims. There seems to be this wishy-washy notion of "belief" that's causing confusion in this thread, where "believing" is equated to "not being judgemental".
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      > You can believe the victim while saying that the evidence doesn't meet whatever bar you set That's not "belief". Believing X means thinking that X is true. What you're really talking about is taking an agnostic position.
    - hueving 9y ago
      If you believe someone, that means you think what they said is true. In this mindset you've setup a guilty until proven innocent framework because in your mind you already believe to be true any accusations leveled at someone. When someone levels an accusation, the only belief you should hold is that it's a serious accusation that needs further investigation because someone has risked a lot by leveling it. Believing anything that comes out of someone's mouth to be true when there are massive consequences to their words is unethical. >It's fine for people to say "I think he did it, but the prosecution didn't prove it, and so I found him not guilty." You cannot believe someone to have done something and personally believe that the person is not guilty. They may not be guilty under the framework of the law, but you are still treating them as guilty in your mind. If you worked with the accused and you had a strong sense of ethics, you would never treat that person the same way again, even though the accusation may have been proven to be fabricated. It is unethical to take accusations at face value that will ruin people's lives.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > it can mean you believe them (as in, trust them) but you're not "convicting" anyone of anything. If they say "X touched me inappropriately" and you say "I believe you" meaning "I trust you", then that means "I trust that you are telling the truth". (Actually, what I think you're really talking about is a kind of social nicety, what is in reality a white lie. Where people will say "I believe you" as like a kind of gesture of good faith towards a person. Like indicating that you're not going to be biased against them. But it's not actually a statement of belief. In other words, it does not have a meaning in terms of a type of belief).
  - odonnellryan 9y ago
    Well, yes. The context is a person coming to you in an office, not a courtroom :)
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      well, as obstacle1 has explained below, then you're not actually talking about beliefs. (which was what the original discussion did concern). E.g. in some of these situations you are actually lying to the person (in a mild way) and not actually expressing a belief at all. An analogy. I might say "I went to the store", but actually I was at a friend's place, and I said this because I wanted to come across a certain way. It is not that the statement "I went to the store" has these two interpretations. The notion of going to a friend's place isn't a different interpretation of that statement, it is just that I'm not telling the truth.
      - odonnellryan 9y ago
        I don't think that's accurate. I can believe you without being absolutely convicted that you're accurate or correct. I can believe your testimony to me in good faith, but understand it may not be accurate.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > I can believe you without being absolutely convicted that you're accurate or correct. Of course - and that means you still think (to some degree of conviction) it is true. The original context that spawned this discussion was implying some sort of interpretation that did not involve a belief of some sort in the truth of the statement. > I can believe your testimony to me in good faith, but understand it may not be accurate. If someone says "X touched me inappropriately", and you respond "I believe you" then this response means "I believe your statement" not "I believe your testimony was in good faith". (Or it is a kind of white lie, as discussed elsewhere in this thread).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

odonnellryan 9y ago

It's just contextual. It can mean: "I believe what you're saying, so I will follow up." Or, "I believe what you're saying, so I will take immediate action on those persons."

binocarlos 9y ago

An example (from a case I was involved as a witness in only last week). A jury must be 100% confident that the evidence presented confirms their beliefs. The judge will say "do not decide based on if you believe it happened but instead on the evidence presented". There a world where the jury can believe it happened (and deliberate for 4.5 hours) but still come out with not guilty because the physical evidence is not there. In historical sexual abuse cases (of which this was one) - the CPS (Criminal Prosecution Service here in the UK) will not take on the case if they did not think there was a good chance of winning and yet the only real evidence here was witness testimony and no forensics. It didn't matter that the jury obviously believed it happened - they did their job and realised that was only an opinion and not backed by evidence.