Lying means you believe X but say Y. If you believe Y, say Y, but the fact is X, that's not lying.

I didn't say he lied, I said he was called a liar (but really, it's more that the strong implication was that he lied, that was overly strong wording on my part). Specifically, I think the wording "I find that hard to believe" has different connotations depending on whether you are talking to the root source of some information, or someone relaying that information.

For example, if I state "I had chicken for lunch" and you reply "I find that hard to believe.", I think the implication is clear that you think I'm lying. Alternatively, if a third party says "kbenson had chicken for lunch" and you say "I find that hard to believe", there is not a clear implication that the third party is lying, nor that where they got the information from is lying, as there are multiple locations in the chain of authenticity of such a statement where a mistake or purposeful misrepresentation could have happened, so it's not clear where fault may lay.

So, when someone states "I don't use any of the default iPhone apps" and another person replies directly to them with "I find that hard to believe", I think the implication that they are lying is clear (whether or not they were actually lying).

Now, as for your specific assertion, I think you are obviously correct in the general sense. Although am interested in your opinion on how you would classify someone that is very loose with regard to their statements and their certainty regarding those statements. If I made a statement asserting something, but thought there might be a 15% chance I was wrong if I really looked into it, would I be lying if I stated it as a fact due to the false certainty implied?

Specifically, in this case, if the author was 85% certain they didn't use any default Apple apps and stated as much without qualifying with "I think", or "probably", they may believe they are correct, but be ultimately wrong. Was it a lie to imply a higher level of certainty than existed? I'm not entirely sure how I would classify that. (Note: I don't mean to imply a specific state of mind for the original commenter, this is purely a thought experiment and that statement was handy).

I simply don't see the implied accusation of lying with "I find that hard to believe." It's merely implying that the statement is wrong. You seem to be interpreting it as an accusation based on the idea that a person making this statement about himself is very unlikely to be incorrect. I don't see that as at all unlikely, and you'll observe here that the statement was in fact quite wrong.

As for levels of uncertainty, I think blanket statements cover a pretty wide range. "I don't use the default apps" could be low or high certainty. If you said something like "I totally definitely absolutely never use the default apps" while you are actually somewhat unsure, then sure, that seems like a lie to me.

> You seem to be interpreting it as an accusation based on the idea that a person making this statement about himself is very unlikely to be incorrect.

I'm interpreting it as an accusation based on the prior explanation, which is less about likelihood of correctness and more about questioning the single authoritative root source of information. In truth, that reasoning is really my explanation of what I see in practice. I cannot recall an instance where someone said "I find that hard to believe" to someone's statement about their own current actions that did not also carry a clear "I call bullshit" connotation. That is, while logically "I find that hard to believe" used in this way can mean that a person thinks you might be wrong, I find that in practice it is not used this way, so it's irrelevant in this context. Specifically, I think the statement as used hear carried a clear "I call bullshit" connotation, which is an implication of lying.

That said, I freely admit my experience in the use of this expression in English might be influenced by region, or even my own biased interpretation, and you or others may have experiences where it was used by or to you in reference to an assertive statement about your action in which there was not a clear "I call bullshit" connotation, in which case I would happily hear them and use them as counter evidence to my own experiences.

> "I don't use the default apps" could be low or high certainty.

To me, assertive statements like this do not exhibit low certainty at all, specifically because it's referencing current state. If it's about the past, it's open to recollection issues, if it's about the future, it's about possible future actions, but when you state "This is what I do", to me that is meant as a clearly defined statement of truth.

In my experience, calling bullshit is almost always about saying the person is wrong, not lying. Maybe carried away by braggadocio, but not outright lying.

You say it's questioning the single authoritative root source of information. I say there is no authoritative root source of this information. People's memories are bad, even about their own lives, and when they say something improbable about their own lives, it's not an implicit accusation of lying if you say you think they're wrong.

> In my experience, calling bullshit is almost always about saying the person is wrong, not lying. Maybe carried away by braggadocio, but not outright lying.

I'm not sure that follow most people's interpretations. Wikipedia[1] even asserts it's usual use in response to statement that are "deceiving, misleading, disingenuous, unfair or false". Personally I see it used, and use it myself (sparingly) when responding to someone you think is knowingly misleading you (possibly in jest). I would be offended if anyone but a close friend called my statements bullshit and I believed them, as I would interpret that as an accusation of me intentional misrepresentation.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

> I say there is no authoritative root source of this information.

Sure there is, in the instances I am (and have been) referring to. That doesn't mean it's infallible, but in the absence of a third party witness or evidence to the contrary, sometimes all you have is the statement of the person about themselves. The only way to find a fault in those situations is for them to admit it. Related to what we've been discussing, I'm not sure I would distinguish between a lie or a mistake when someone recants immediately after a statement and questioning of said statement when in regards their own actions in the way we've been discussing. I consider both acts of bad faith (if someone puts so little thought into their words that they must recant at the slightest questioning, then I view it as not better than a lie).

"I'm not sure I would distinguish between a lie or a mistake when someone recants immediately after a statement and questioning of said statement when in regards their own actions in the way we've been discussing. I consider both acts of bad faith (if someone puts so little thought into their words that they must recant at the slightest questioning, then I view it as not better than a lie)."

I'd suggest you really ought to lighten up, understand informal discourse for what it is, and stop projecting your own harsh views of other people onto other people.

> understand informal discourse for what it is, and stop projecting your own harsh views of other people onto other people.

I don't think it's overly harsh to expect people, when talking about their own actions (and obviously when understanding the topic and terminology), and when in a discussion which is not a light hearted banter, to expect someone to put enough thought into that statement to make it true, at least to the degree it requires additional information to make them reconsider.

This theoretical exchange in a discussion regarding the merits of Chicken illustrates my point of view: Person 1: I don't eat chicken. Person 2: Are you sure? Person 1: Okay, yes, I eat chicken.

Person 1 has, at this point, proven themselves unreliable in their statements. Whether that is from a lie or mistake is both unprovable,and to me, irrelevant, because the end result is the same. I may or may not converse with them further, depending on other cues, but functionally, what's the difference to Person 2 or observers. I don't think that's overly harsh, just stating the realities of the situation. Sometimes people tell small lies, sometimes they make mistakes, but every occurrence affects your view of them slightly unless you expected that statement to be untrue.

So, to bring this full circle, the original commenter that asserted they didn't use default Apple apps may have lied, but it's far more likely they were mistaken, but in the end, I'll view their statements with a bit more skepticism now, as they've proven themselves capable of making a simple, assertive blanket statements about their behavior that they will recant at the slightest question.

Even so, I still feel the original reply carried an implied accusation of deception, for the reasons we've covered in depth. Regardless of whether the replying commenter was eventually correct, I don't think they had cause to use the wording they did at the time they did. We don't agree, which is fine, but that's why I felt compelled to make the statement I did, and while my wording may have been overly harsh (which I've already admitted), I don't believe my message was.

I assume we're done here, since your last statement was a single sentence whose purpose was to call into question my attitude, understanding, and actions, and offered little additional to discuss? In truth, I found that somewhat belittling, but am trying to ignore that aspect, as I may be misinterpreting it (and I try to be more forgiving of speech directed towards myself than to others). I've tried to be civil, and while this discussion wasn't light hearted, I did find it informative.