What’s the difference between assuming something and presuming it? Why do defendants in court have the assumption of innocence but not the presumption of innocence
(off the top of my head) You can assume something unconsciously or unintentionally - but you presume something deliberately. Defendants are therefore given the “presumption of innocence” as a deliberate reminder to all that the State has the burden of proof to establish guilt.
I think you assume based on no evidence. You presume based on some, possibly slight evidence.
Looking at full garbage can, you assume somebody will empty it.
Having seen a garbage can that was full, and is now empty, you presume somebody emptied it.
I think I’m used to hearing it the other way around. A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The difference is that when you presume, you make a Prez out of u and me.
To assume is to take on or take up; you can assume a role or a responsibility or a position or, if you’re the Virgin, you can be Assumed into Heaven. The sense of taking on an idea or belief is a comparatively late-developing sense of the word; it originally arose in the sense of assuming something not proven for the purposes of argument or logical reasoning. Mathematicians do this all the time: “Assume that x is greater than zero. It follows then that . . .”.
Presuming a role or idea is similar, except that presume carries the implication that what your are doing is unwarranted, not properly established, etc. I can assume the responsibility of looking into some mystery and trying to solve it, but it is presumptuous of me to question people about it if I have no status which entitles me to ask the questions and they have no obligation to answer them. We talk of the presumption of innocence because this arises in a context where guilt or innocence has not yet been established.
spot on very good response!
Hence the old Victorian joke that when Stanley was quoted as saying “Dr. Livingstone, I presume?”, those who thought him over-bumptious anyway (as many did) would have had Livingstone reply “Indeed you do, sir”.
I think there is also a distinction that “assume” indicates something acknowledged to be debatable and changeable in the light of evidence (implicitly, “Let’s assume for the sake of the argument”). “Presume” carries something pre-emptive and active about it: taking something upon oneself (implicitly unasked), or indicating that it has to be a very powerful argument or set of evidence to overturn it (as in the presumption of innocence).
The definitions I find from Google agree with the evidence issue. Assume is defined as “suppose to be the case, without proof.” Presume is defined as “suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.” The Cambridge dictionary also agrees: Assume: “to accept something as true without question or proof:” Presume: “to believe something to be true because it is likely, although not certain.”
I do note that sometimes I use “assume” where “presume” would be better, but I think that’s because “assume” includes the definition of “presume,” while not the other way around.
In usage, the two words are often synonyms. In my own appreciation and observation, I’ve seen that the “pre” part of ‘presume’ emphasizes advance application of thought, which ‘assume’ doesn’t include. So essentially, “presume” is a more aggressive version of ‘assume.’ Assuming is more passive than assume.
And of course, assume has another usage definition that has nothing at all to do with “presume.” You never PRESUME someone else’s debt, for example. ‘Assume’ in this situation means “take over.”
There are also archaic uses of words. “Doctor Livingston I presume” is such an older, archaic usage. Modern Americans tend to say “I assume” in the same situations.
Words are fun!