1

Is there a concise way to express "without further specification" or "based on what is known", as in

Without further specification, items A and B are indistinguishable.

and

Based on what is known, options A and B are equally good choices.

An idiom in this ballpark would be "on the face of it", but I am intending something more precise.

"Ostensibly" comes fairly close, and this might be appropriate for the first example above (if A and B are to be distinguished based on visual appearance), but this has connotations of being specious and doesn't fit with the second example.

I realise that the Latin phrase a priori may be appropriate in some contexts, as in

A and B are, a priori, equivalent.

but this has a quite precise meaning which does not fit all cases (independence from all experience, rather than limited experience as in the first example above).

Edit: I had hoped to keep things general, as have found the above construction ("without further specification...") to come up quite often in my work, but it has been suggested in the comments that it may help to provide an example of what "A" and "B" could be. Suppose you have two apples, both of which weigh 100g. If you are only told their weight, but no other information, you have no way of distinguishing between them. However if you are also told the colour of the apples, and one is green whilst the other is red, you can.

Improve this question
11
  • 1
    Hmm... seemingly, overtly, apparently, intuitively? Am I in the right ballpark?
    – chasly - supports Monica
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 7:58
  • Yes, I was hoping for something not suggestive of visual phenomena, such as overtly and apparently, or with connotations of deception ("seemingly" also conveys a degree of uncertainty?). But perhaps it is necessary to be bold and trust that the reader will appreciate from the context that you are not being restrictive to sight or uncertainty.
    – pip
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 8:06
  • 1
    How about prima facie ?
    – chasly - supports Monica
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 8:09
  • 1
    Your examples are different: The first can be expressed as "Superficially, items A and B are indistinguishable." However, to retain the meaning, A and B appear to be/are believed to be/are thought of as/present as equally good choices.
    – Greybeard
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 9:28
  • 2
    Okay. I think you need the suffix, "-wise". Weight-wise, A and B are equivalent. However colour-wise they differ considerably. Also, "price-wise" etc. If that is what you are looking for I'll justify it in an answer.
    – chasly - supports Monica
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 12:59

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Prima facie is Latin for "at first sight", and is used as a legal term meaning "based on first impressions" or "accepted until otherwise disproven". It conveys a notion that something is a reasonable starting position given the readily available information, although there may be deeper nuance upon further investigation.

Prima facie, items A and B are indistinguishable.

Improve this answer
1
  • This was first suggested in the comments by @chaslyfromUK, and I thought it didn't quite fit. But your explanation has provided insight and I am warming to it. It is certainly concise. Can you provide an example of it being used outside of law (real or of your own construction), or perhaps further exposition to support that a reader would understand what I meant by the term? Maybe if we just start using it in other domains it will catch on...
    – pip
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 19:05
0

Common wisdom would agree that items A and B are indistinguishable. and Common wisdom would determine that options A and B are equally good choices.

Improve this answer
1
  • This definitely is a useful one to remember for certain situations, but doesn't work so well when you have unambiguous properties to compare (the apples either weigh the same or they don't, common wisdom doesn't help you reach this conclusion).
    – pip
    Commented Jun 22, 2020 at 18:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .