Over the Hedge
Lexical hedges are an essential part of good scientific writing, but for writers they are tripwires that need to be removed unless a writer wants to get rid of their readers. For a long time this was a conflict I did not know how to approach.

Phrases like “seems to” and “may” are valued by scientists as expressions of uncertainty in an environment that contains varying degrees of uncertainty but is almost never free of it. In writing, the same phrases are spurned as useless clutter that disrupts the flow of reading. Does this mean that scientists, like writers, need to avoid hedging if they want their writing to be accessible and engaging for all readers?
That would be too easy. There is a reason for hedging that goes beyond making our language more complicated. If uncertainty is not expressed, scientific results can be over-interpreted.
Does that mean to avoid hedging is the only storytelling principle to be ignored in science? Again, that would be too easy. There is a reason why writers strive to make their language less complicated (at least in these days of distraction and abundant alternative pastimes).
I think the answer to balancing uncertainty and clarity is not as simple as using or avoiding hedging. It is much more difficult and situational, but I will try my best to cover it here.
Why Writers Dislike Hedging
Consider the following example:
I elbowed the door shut, got rid of my bags, tossed my shoes on the shelf and walked into the kitchen. The table was empty, the counters clean.
“I’m home!”, I called as I backed out of the kitchen.
A muffled greeting drew me to the next room. I poked my head in. Alice was on the phone, listening but looking as if she’d rather not.
“Hi”, I said. “Where’s the food? I’m hungry.”
Those seemed to have been the wrong words.
Did you stumble over that last sentence?
From the point of view of the narrator (let’s say it’s John), that sentence would be correct. John can only interpret Alice’s reaction and deduce that he has made a mistake. But he cannot be 100% sure. However, unless the writer wants to portray John as a character who struggles with uncertainty, they would shorten the sentence to the following:
Those were the wrong words.
In theory, this is incorrect. But it is stronger. It makes an immediate impression on the reader, and because John believes it and will act on that belief, it doesn’t matter that it’s an uncertainty-laden deduction rather than a fact. What matters is that the reader gets the message.
“Those were the wrong words” is hard to misinterpret. It may turn out to be wrong, but if it is, well, John has made a wrong assumption, which is likely to make what follows much more interesting than if he had made no assumption at all. The reader will adapt to the change, appreciate that things are happening in the story, and read on.
“Those seemed to have been the wrong words” leaves room for speculation. The focus shifts from the message (“wrong words”) to the hedge (“seemed to”). Maybe they were the wrong words. Maybe they weren’t. The message becomes unclear. The reader may get angry because the writer is not telling them what is going on. Or they may make up their own minds and get lost in considerations that may or may not have anything to do with the story. Or they may ignore the lexical hedge altogether and assume that these were the wrong words. Or they may think that the sentence tells them nothing and get bored.
Different readers will react differently because a space of interpretation was left open. This space has no value (unless it is used to characterise John as uncertain), but it provides ample opportunity for confusion and for a break in the flow of reading. There is always a risk that the reader will become distracted and never pick up the text again, which is what all writers want to avoid.
Of course, writing, at least fiction writing, offers some room to be incorrect. That’s not the case with science.
Science Needs to Express Uncertainty
Good science strives to be 100% correct, while most science is also inherently uncertain. There is no truth we can measure, only observations we can make. We aggregate our observations, and if enough scientists observe something, it becomes scientific consensus. Even that consensus may only be an observation of a truth we can never know - but it is our current truth.
It is like trying to solve a crime for which there are no witnesses and no incontrovertible evidence. There are only signs and indicators, but if there are enough of them, they can be used to convict the person they point to. Most of the time these deductions are correct, but there is still some uncertainty. How much uncertainty can be left to convict someone is a social consensus. Just as there is a scientific consensus about when something is a fact.
The problem is that people don’t like uncertainty. So how can the uncertainties inherent in science be communicated well?
How to Deal With Uncertainty
The current answer to the question of how to communicate uncertainty in science is hedging. To me that sounds like recommending poison to a sick person. While some remedies are made from small amounts of substances that are toxic, the recommendation is unspecific and likely to lead to disastrous results.
Different expressions of uncertainty will have different effects on different people. Different situations and audiences require different explanations. Hedging is one way of expressing uncertainty. It is nice. It allows us to hide behind words. We don’t have to be sure or confident or think too much about what we say because we never make any commitments. But what we really need is to be confidently and deliberately uncertain.
Be Specific
Saying “we may have found a solution to problem A” is not enough. Uncertainty needs to be expressed clearly and specifically. We need to explain why we cannot give a definite solution now (multiple explanations?) and what is needed to find the solution (more research? better research?). This means explaining, or at least naming, scientific methods and concepts so that others can gain the same and possibly complex understanding that we hide behind the simple word “may”.
One example is making a clear distinction between results from animal studies and results from human studies. When I read headlines promising a cure for a certain type of cancer, I’m curious. When I find out that the cure has only been tested on mice, I’m annoyed. It’s like telling me “we’ve found a cure for this deadly disease” and then going back on that promise by saying “but we have no idea if it will work in humans”. I feel betrayed. If the headline had been specific and told me so right away, I would have stayed curious, because testing something in mice and making it work is an interesting and normal step in scientific research. The news would have been positive: “We’ve found a cure for a deadly disease in mice that may or may not help humans - stay tuned for more results”.
By communicating intermediate results, we are already assuming that the audience is interested in the scientific process. To communicate where we are and where the uncertainties lie, without leaving our audience guessing or annoyed, we simply need to include that process in our communication.
Be Aware of Conflicts
The use of lexical hedges such as “we may have found a solution to problem A” can even be harmful because it creates a possibility in the audience’s mind that was previously unknown and may be negative. If so, we need to address the worries and concerns that may arise from the use of lexical hedges.
For example, the mere suggestion of a possible causal relationship can cause anxiety, such as saying: “Eating unprocessed red meat may increase your risk of cancer, diabetes and heart disease”. Until there is scientific consensus, it is better to be more specific: “Whether eating unprocessed red meat increases the risk of cancer, diabetes and heart disease is the subject of ongoing research. More research is needed before any recommendations can be made.”
By anticipating a possible and understandable fear, we can clearly address the uncertainty without implying one of the possible outcomes of further research.
Use Jargon
Uncertainty can be part of scientific jargon. For example, instead of saying that “A may cause B”, we can say “We found that A correlates with B, but to establish a causal relationship between them we need to do a longitudinal, double-blind, randomised controlled trial”. We just need to make sure that the audience knows the jargon or explain it to them.
This may seem like the opposite of easy to understand language, but it is specific and thorough explanations take some space (concise does not simply mean short). “A may cause B” opens up a whole range of possibilities for interpreting if, how and why A causes B. This opens up a space of potential worry, confusion, negative feelings and inappropriate discussions. Being specific, even to the point of including our methodology in the communication, removes both the need and the possibility to interpret the results. We’re taking the audience through some rough terrain, but we’ve marked the way so they don’t get lost.
But Use Jargon Carefully
It is helpful to use jargon selectively to keep our conversation concise. But we need to be aware that some phrases have different meanings in science than in everyday life. Using such jargon can convey uncertainty where there is none, or vice versa.
For example, scientific consensus is often expressed by saying “Scientists believe that …”. The word “believe” is closely related to opinion, and instead of conveying the result or current state of a scientific process, “believe” can reduce it to a simple hypothesis in the audience’s perception. Worse, as the authors of this paper point out, belief can turn a fact or something that needs research into something that is open to debate and public opinion. The same applies to “think”. While it may be inappropriate to use the word “know”, there are beautiful phrases that convey the different stages of research in a more precise and scientific language. Like “scientists observe that …” or “the scientific consensus is …”.
Jargon can have a double meaning that we need to be aware of. Including the scientific jargon we use to express uncertainty.
Avoid Fillers
Excessive use of hedging can lead an audience to think that the communicators are uncertain as individuals or about the quality of their work, rather than understanding the inherent uncertainty in science. In other words, they may think that the communicators don’t know what they’re talking about. Therefore, expressions of uncertainty should be limited to those that are necessary to accurately present scientific results.
This means that we can get rid of fillers altogether. Because fillers like uhh, uhm, hmm, well, you know, sort of, … just make us seem uncertain without providing any information. Of course, this is more difficult in oral conversations than in written ones. But it is worth practising breathing rather than filling every available moment with sound.
Be Active
Avoiding the passive voice when talking about science provides an immediate bonus in terms of communicating uncertainty.
For example, “our study results suggest that A is a strong indicator of B” focuses on a subjective “our study”. Even if the reader skips the middle part of the sentence, including the lexical hedge, they will know that the authors are not making a general claim, but presenting their own findings.
The passive version “It is suggested by the results of this study that A is a strong indicator of B” sounds much more like a general claim because the subjective “we” is missing and replaced by a much more general “it is”. This version relies solely on the lexical hedge (“suggested”) to express uncertainty.
By avoiding the passive voice and including the people behind the science in our communication, we can naturally express a degree of uncertainty. As an added bonus, we make our communications more understandable and engaging.
Be Deliberate
Hedging is a useful tool for expressing the uncertainty inherent in science. But it is not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one for a given situation. If we don’t put in the work to carefully express uncertainty and provide context, we can lose or antagonise our audience. So let’s be intentional about hedging and make sure we don’t set up tripwires.
Photo by Timur Kozmenko on Unsplash.