Well, you can say "eggs are bad" or "I think eggs are bad."
When you say "eggs are bad" or "X is Y" it is not always assumed that "I think" is inherently built in, but sometimes it is.
Furthermore, if you say "eggs are bad" to a 4 year old kid, one implants an opinion about eggs into that kid, because they are impressionable. But if you say it to a 75 year old, they might want to know how you've formed that view, or more likely what you want from them or yourself by saying it.
So if you're going to say "X is Y" without 'I think,' at least say it to evoke an agreeable reaction - like at a Vegan conference if talking about eggs. Or else where opinions are fluid.
I was thinking along the lines of words that carried the concept of implied doubt rather than requiring it through inference. I had been reading LessWrong and noticed someone talking in the comments about how the writing lacked nuance due to the need to make points clear. It got me thinking about the need for words that allow for this nuance in a way that doesn't disrupt flow. When I read the call to expand vocabulary I figured I would ask, since I felt my thoughts and his post were tangentially related. I'm sorry for not being as clear as I could have been.
When you say "eggs are bad" or "X is Y" it is not always assumed that "I think" is inherently built in, but sometimes it is.
Furthermore, if you say "eggs are bad" to a 4 year old kid, one implants an opinion about eggs into that kid, because they are impressionable. But if you say it to a 75 year old, they might want to know how you've formed that view, or more likely what you want from them or yourself by saying it.
So if you're going to say "X is Y" without 'I think,' at least say it to evoke an agreeable reaction - like at a Vegan conference if talking about eggs. Or else where opinions are fluid.
I think I am right.