Does the phrase "to err on the side of ...," specifically "err on the side of caution," indicate that it is wrong to be "on the side of," the object? "Err" makes me think of "error," and is such the word in question in the phrase. Additionally, is this phrase considered an idiom?
- Anybody can ask a question
- Anybody can answer
- The best answers are voted up and rise to the top
In the phrase “to err on the side of…”, the meaning of err is closer to that of the Old French errer, which is “to stray”. The image implied is that, if you can't for sure walk on the right line, you might want to err on one particular side rather than the other.
So, just to make sure I answer your actual question: no, “to err on the side of…” does not indicate wrongdoing.
"To err on the side of caution" means that if you are wrong you will at least be wrong in a cautious way. Let's say you have some chicken in your fridge. You're not sure if it's edible or not because you don't recall how long it's been there. Even though you are hungry and want to eat it, you throw it out to avoid any chance of food poisoning. Then your wife/husband/roommate gets home and says "I just bought that chicken today!". Well, you erred in throwing it out, but it was through caution.
Basically it means to act conservatively even if your actions are more conservative than they need to be.
No, it just means that in a situation involving an unclear distinction between what may be right and what may be wrong, the speaker is going to try to choose a course that is closer to the right side.
It's like when surgeons cut out tumors. They cut out healthy tissue as well to leave clean "margins" — erring on the side of clean, in that case.
No, the phrase is used to describe where the margin of error is placed. (Although, that might not be the exact origin of the expression.)
To err on the side of caution is to choose to be as cautious as to be sure to always be cautious enough, so when uncertain, rather be too much cautious than too little.
It is used in a situation where you have to make a choice where the desired outcome is uncertain.
Example: You have to make a decision from data about marketing drug A (95% safe, 70% effective) or drug B (70% safe, 95% effective).
Your goal is to make the most amount of money considering both safety and efficacy. However, in life, nothing is absolutely reliable such as this safety/efficacy data.
Which is more important to make the most money — safety or efficacy? You have to make a decision. Let’s say you decided that safety is more important in making more money so that doctor’s and patients feel more safe about the drug to continue sales. However, this could be a mistake — an error — it may very well be that efficacy is more important in making more money.
By choosing to market drug A based on safety concerns even though it may be an error in terms of revenue, you have just erred on the side of safety.
In other words, let’s say if you had to make a mistake (the choice that leads to making no money) which would you choose?
Keeping in mind that your goal is strictly to make revenue, would you rather choose drug A and make the error of being safe but making no money or choose drug B which is effective but not as safe and make no money?
If you’re not a greedy bastard you probably erred on the side of safety and chose Drug A.