overprecising

Overprecising is the practice of introducing excessive precision to statements, often by adding specific figures, measurements, or qualifiers that exceed what the evidence supports. It functions as a rhetorical or methodological tendency to appear objective or certain, while potentially hiding underlying uncertainty. The term is not widely standardized in scholarly nomenclature but is used in debates about clarity, data presentation, and risk communication.

The term derives from the prefix over- and precision. It is discussed in philosophy of language and science communication as a critique of how numbers are deployed to convey credibility. It is related to, but distinct from, overprecision bias in decision making, which concerns confidence intervals and judgment.

The mechanisms involve a cognitive preference for concreteness, a desire to reduce ambiguity, and an aim to foreground measurement that can drive overprecising. In practice, writers may insert precise-sounding numbers or exact timeframes without transparent discussion of measurement error, sampling, or uncertainty.

Examples include statements like “The road is exactly 2.345 kilometers long” without stating measurement method or margin of error; “The project will take 11 weeks and 4 days” when estimates carry larger uncertainty; or “There are exactly 1,234,567 records” that ignores duplicates, missing data, or processing anomalies.

Impact and critique center on the potential to mislead by implying certainty, distort risk assessment, and reduce interpretability when numbers are inappropriately precise. Critics argue it obscures uncertainty and invites misinterpretation.

Context and balance note that some domains require precise reporting, but responsible practice emphasizes accompanying precision with uncertainty bounds and transparent methodology. Related concepts include overprecision, measurement uncertainty, and data literacy.

---