I know there is not going to be an exact number, like 84.6% or something. But maybe a better way to put it, since there will be a grey area, is to break it into two questions:
(1) At >X%, it would be completely* uncontroversial to say “vast majority”.
(2) At <Y%, it would be completely* untenable to say “vast majority”.
Which then means between X% and Y%, the appropriateness of the usage would be arguable.
*This need not mean complete unanimity of every person on Earth. There will always be cranks, the ignorant, and the contrary. But how about a number the vast majority of people would agree on?
How will you decide on the appropriate minimum percentage for use of the term “vast majority”? Will it be the lowest percentage that the vast majority of respondents deem acceptable?
And what are our chances of reaching consensus on what proportion constitutes a consensus?
Huh, so even slightly past 2-1 you think it’s completely untenable? Interesting.
LOL, ISWYDT.
BTW, I ask this because in a thread in a Facebook group, one person referred to the “vast majority”, the other disputed this characterization by making an argument that the majority in question was one of “only” in the neighborhood of 98-99 percent! I would expect that most of us, regardless of how much we may disagree, find that position a tad extreme.
But I’m looking not for shoot-the-breeze opinionatin’, but rather for authoritative usage arbitration. If it were just a single word, I’d go with what the OED or American Heritage Dictionary said.
You used the words “uncontroversial” and “untenable” in your OP. Those words relate to opinions rather than facts, and themselves have no precise definition.
At least 33% of GQ moderators believe that this question is non factual, which operationally speaking is a vast majority.
It’s all subjective, sure, but 2:1 isn’t “vast majority” territory to me yet. It’s “solid majority.” I sure as shit wouldn’t call a bet where you win 67% of the time as winning “a vast majority of the time.”
ETA: Also, didn’t you also say 70% is your low-end cutoff? Or am I completely misunderstanding your post with the percentages?
Then maybe I should have posted in MPSIMS instead, as I endeavor to stay out of IMHO and GD, except for threads I started before making that vow (which this now becomes, I guess, in a way).
It’s a good point about betting. But that’s where different contexts come in. What if it’s a context where 67% is vanishingly rare? Say someone got 67% of the popular vote in a U.S. presidential election, which has never happened. Still wouldn’t say they received “the vast majority of the popular vote”?
I hadn’t weighed in on my question yet; that was in response to the deal about “fair chance”, which I think is somewhere in the range of 10% and 70%. But I’ll go ahead and get on the record now: 67% to 85% is the arguable range IMO.
Indeed, I wish this had stayed in GQ. Can’t we find a doper who works for one of those big survey companies, like Quinnipiac or something? Or maybe the survey people release only raw numbers, and we need someone from the media to answer this objectively.
What I’m trying to say is this: Fox News or the New York Times, or any of the competition, surely they have rules for their reporters that if X% feel this way, then this is how to call it. I know that we are talking about math, not grammar, but maybe there’s an appendix in the AP Stylebook that covers these questions?
I’m used to dealing with this terminology in the realm of antivax and health woo in general.
Wooists triumphantly cite a sprinkling of doctors of various kinds who support their nonsense, while physicians who know better, typically outnumber the woo docs by well over 99:1.
>99% certainly qualifies as overwhelming in my book, but I’d accept 95% or greater.
(1) At** >95%,** it would be completely* uncontroversial to say “vast majority”.
(2) At <80%, it would be completely* untenable to say “vast majority”.
“fair chance” is a relative measure, not absolutely quantifiable - e.g. for a coin toss, it’s 50%, for pulling an ace it’s 4/52, etc. It’s synonymous with “unbiased chance”
