I’m not sure that’s just a nitpick. It’s a mistake so common that it should probably be listed under biases. It might be a variation on availability bias—what’s actually mentioned fills in the mental space so that the cases which aren’t mentioned get ignored.
And I’m not sure it’s a mistake.
If you’re getting your information in a context where you know it’s meant completely literally and nothing else (e.g., Omega, lawyers, Spock), then yes, it would be wrong.
In normal conversation, people may (sometimes but not always; it’s infuriating) use “if” to mean “if and only if.”
As for this particular case, somervta is probably completely right. But I don’t think it’s conducive to communication to accuse people of bias for following Grice’s maxims.
I’m not sure that’s just a nitpick. It’s a mistake so common that it should probably be listed under biases. It might be a variation on availability bias—what’s actually mentioned fills in the mental space so that the cases which aren’t mentioned get ignored.
And I’m not sure it’s a mistake. If you’re getting your information in a context where you know it’s meant completely literally and nothing else (e.g., Omega, lawyers, Spock), then yes, it would be wrong. In normal conversation, people may (sometimes but not always; it’s infuriating) use “if” to mean “if and only if.” As for this particular case, somervta is probably completely right. But I don’t think it’s conducive to communication to accuse people of bias for following Grice’s maxims.