"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner.

[jane_aid@mastodon.social]

@vrandecic The disagreement here is revealing something deep: conflating *fact-condition* (was Tom there) with *assertion-appropriateness* (should Maria have said it).

Maria failed on both. She wasn't positioned to assert fact, just relay intention. The study disagreement reflects different weights on sincerity vs accuracy—but the deeper question is whether *future contingents* even have truth-values before they resolve.

[ginevracat@toot.community]

@vrandecic @janjko Yes. Is this not a common interpretation?
A false statement in good faith doesn't fall into the same category as lying, for me. Maria did make her statement too definitive based on, essentially, hearsay. But not exactly a lie.
I would have replied, as far as I know, yes.

[uastronomer@mastodon.monoceros.co.za]

@vrandecic Could there be a language issue here? As in, is this result not because people disagree about the nature of truth, but because people interpret the word "True" differently, perhaps because English is their second language and they've been taught to associate the word with a concept from their own language which doesn't exactly match?

[abuseofnotation@mathstodon.xyz]

@vrandecic Reminds me of Gettier problem.

[moonrabbit@sunny.garden]

@vrandecic

it's neither true nor false, but if i had to pick one, i'd say true, because she believed it to be true at the time based on information she was given in good faith.

more accurate though would've been for her to say that tom said he'd be there.

[foolishowl@social.coop]

@pomegranate_stew @vrandecic @janjko I find people often express frustration when I use conditional statements, but I find it frustrating that it's apparently a social norm to express unwarranted certainty.

[elexia@twoot.site]

@vrandecic it's really wild to me how people will think her statement was true just because she believed it to be at the time? that doesn't make any sense. people can be wrong, especially when they make overly confident statements of fact.

[altim@mastodon.nl]

@vrandecic I'd say that the question that is asked following this case shouldn't have been formulated like that. Maria's statement belongs to another category of reality or truthfulness.

[elexia@twoot.site]

@vrandecic this study kinda explains a lot about how we're in the situation we are in.

[irina@wandering.shop]

@BenAveling @vrandecic @janjko Yes; you need to qualify it with "I think X" or "I'm practically sure that X"

[jane_aid@mastodon.social]

@vrandecic @vrandecic The insight: Maria's statement doesn't have a fixed meaning. When true, it reports a fact; when false, it reports her credence based on trust. Same sentence, different truth-conditions.

Frankfurt's bullshit concept fits: she reports Tom's intent unconcerned with verification. That's distinct from lying *and* simple error—a third category we often miss.

[ignaziop1977@mas.to]

@GinevraCat @vrandecic @janjko I'd say she makes her statement on more than hearsay. Tom said he'd be at the party. Unless Tom had a track record of changing his mind or lying, she had enough information to expect him to be there.

Now, if Peter was an attorney about to start questioning a witness, she might want to be more explicit, but she was having dinner before a party...

[ginevracat@toot.community]

@ignaziop1977 @vrandecic @janjko Fair.

[raven667@hachyderm.io]

@stk @vrandecic @poupou coming in late but I think language allows for indicating the confidence one has for information, and saying "Tom *is* there" is stronger than saying "Tom *said* he'd be there" and the latter is more accurate and doesn't make claims that the speaker hasn't (or can't) verify. I think when speaking we have _some_ responsibility to not mislead the listener, I work with computers and when I say something *is* then I probably also have the documentation up and am confirming it or I have a test case I've run which demonstrates the behavior, which I'll include in the message. If i dont have the evidence right in front of me I'll say I _think_ its so, but that I dont _know_ without checking, even for things I'm pretty familiar with.

[ef@mastodon.bsd.cafe]

@vrandecic it depends on whether the true or false is based on the knowledge at the time or what actually happened. The exam question is ambiguous.

[leefromphilly@mstdn.social]

@jswright61 @vrandecic exactly! ‍️

[d_rift@beige.party]

@vrandecic She misrepresented her reasonable confidence level. That is a false statement for a purpose where contextually the confidence level was a vital part of the answer. In a context where confidence level was less vital, a best-guess answer could have been true. Whether it's false or true depends on the meaning of the asked question more than on anything else.

[zwol@masto.hackers.town]

@vrandecic I would not describe her answer as either true or false. In fact, I feel that the 50/50 (within margins of error) split seen in the study is the expected outcome from making people categorize this (relatively commonplace, but poorly characterized by both words) scenario as one or the other.

Her statement was clearly within the bounds of "wrong", and outside the bounds of "lying". That's a much more defensible way to put it.

[noujoum@ohai.social]

@vrandecic would have liked this to have multiple choice answers!

Because in my view it was true and untrue at the same time.

When she answered, she answered truthfully based on the information available to her.

When they arrived the facts had changed and her answer wasn't true any more.

So really, it depends on which point in time you choose to judge whether it was true - and from whose perspective you look at it.