story
For example, if I state "I had chicken for lunch" and you reply "I find that hard to believe.", I think the implication is clear that you think I'm lying. Alternatively, if a third party says "kbenson had chicken for lunch" and you say "I find that hard to believe", there is not a clear implication that the third party is lying, nor that where they got the information from is lying, as there are multiple locations in the chain of authenticity of such a statement where a mistake or purposeful misrepresentation could have happened, so it's not clear where fault may lay.
So, when someone states "I don't use any of the default iPhone apps" and another person replies directly to them with "I find that hard to believe", I think the implication that they are lying is clear (whether or not they were actually lying).
Now, as for your specific assertion, I think you are obviously correct in the general sense. Although am interested in your opinion on how you would classify someone that is very loose with regard to their statements and their certainty regarding those statements. If I made a statement asserting something, but thought there might be a 15% chance I was wrong if I really looked into it, would I be lying if I stated it as a fact due to the false certainty implied?
Specifically, in this case, if the author was 85% certain they didn't use any default Apple apps and stated as much without qualifying with "I think", or "probably", they may believe they are correct, but be ultimately wrong. Was it a lie to imply a higher level of certainty than existed? I'm not entirely sure how I would classify that. (Note: I don't mean to imply a specific state of mind for the original commenter, this is purely a thought experiment and that statement was handy).
As for levels of uncertainty, I think blanket statements cover a pretty wide range. "I don't use the default apps" could be low or high certainty. If you said something like "I totally definitely absolutely never use the default apps" while you are actually somewhat unsure, then sure, that seems like a lie to me.
I'm interpreting it as an accusation based on the prior explanation, which is less about likelihood of correctness and more about questioning the single authoritative root source of information. In truth, that reasoning is really my explanation of what I see in practice. I cannot recall an instance where someone said "I find that hard to believe" to someone's statement about their own current actions that did not also carry a clear "I call bullshit" connotation. That is, while logically "I find that hard to believe" used in this way can mean that a person thinks you might be wrong, I find that in practice it is not used this way, so it's irrelevant in this context. Specifically, I think the statement as used hear carried a clear "I call bullshit" connotation, which is an implication of lying.
That said, I freely admit my experience in the use of this expression in English might be influenced by region, or even my own biased interpretation, and you or others may have experiences where it was used by or to you in reference to an assertive statement about your action in which there was not a clear "I call bullshit" connotation, in which case I would happily hear them and use them as counter evidence to my own experiences.
> "I don't use the default apps" could be low or high certainty.
To me, assertive statements like this do not exhibit low certainty at all, specifically because it's referencing current state. If it's about the past, it's open to recollection issues, if it's about the future, it's about possible future actions, but when you state "This is what I do", to me that is meant as a clearly defined statement of truth.
