- Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:17 am
#6160
You ask a good question, and one that has an answer that is not readily obvious. First, the two terms are largely the same, and this causes a lot of confusion. Most of the time, they will operate in a very similar fashion, and it is only at the extremes where they differ.
In logical terms, "not necessarily true" is the opposite of "must be true," and thus includes all other truth possibilities, including "cannot be true" (more on this in a moment). "Could be true" is the opposite of "cannot be true," and includes all other truth possibilities, including "must be true." So, then, the two terms actually include the term that is the logical opposite of the other term (this is the extreme where they differ).
That abstract definition is pretty confusing, so I like to use a numerical example when talking about truth, because it helps solidify what is being discussed. Let's say that truth ranges along a scale from 0 to 100. 0 would equal "cannot be true," or none of the truth. 100 would equal "must be true," or all of the truth. Those are the endpoints, and most people are comfortable with those. Let's then look at the two terms you asked about.
I mentioned that "not necessarily true" is the opposite of "must be true," and in our numerical example, that would mean everything but 100, which translates to 0-99. "Could be true" is the opposite of "cannot be true," and in our numerical example, that would mean everything but 0, which translates to 1-100. So, between 1 and 99 (which is the area of "some of the truth"), the two terms are pretty much the same (they overlap here); it is only when they approach 0 and 100 (the ends, or absolutes) that the difference between the two becomes apparent.
Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!
