"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner.
-
"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner. Peter asks Maria whether Tom is at the party that they intend to go to after dinner. Maria answers that Tom is at the party. After all, Tom had told her that he would be at the party. When they arrive at the party, it turns out that Tom had changed his plans, and is not at the party. Was Maria's answer true or false?"
(please spread for visibility, I would like this to be as wide as possible)
1/2
A new study shows that there is much, much less agreement on the answer to this question than I would have expected. Even after reading about the study, I still expect people in my bubble to have the same answer as I do. Let's see. But this probably means that the meaning of truth, in the general population, is simply different from what I would have assumed. And explains a number of public discourses.
2/2
The surprising divide over what counts as true
A new study finds that what people think about facts, authenticity, or coherent beliefs explains why they disagree about what is true.
Reason.com (reason.com)
-
"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner. Peter asks Maria whether Tom is at the party that they intend to go to after dinner. Maria answers that Tom is at the party. After all, Tom had told her that he would be at the party. When they arrive at the party, it turns out that Tom had changed his plans, and is not at the party. Was Maria's answer true or false?"
(please spread for visibility, I would like this to be as wide as possible)
1/2
@vrandecic ex ante true, ex post false
-
A new study shows that there is much, much less agreement on the answer to this question than I would have expected. Even after reading about the study, I still expect people in my bubble to have the same answer as I do. Let's see. But this probably means that the meaning of truth, in the general population, is simply different from what I would have assumed. And explains a number of public discourses.
2/2
The surprising divide over what counts as true
A new study finds that what people think about facts, authenticity, or coherent beliefs explains why they disagree about what is true.
Reason.com (reason.com)
@vrandecic so some people equate someone lying to someone's statement being false? Then they should have a different word for someone being unintentionally wrong?
-
@vrandecic ex ante true, ex post false
@poupou so before they went to the party, you consider her saying the truth?
-
@vrandecic so some people equate someone lying to someone's statement being false? Then they should have a different word for someone being unintentionally wrong?
@janjko yeah, I have the same problem. I would say Maria never lied. But for me, that doesn't mean what she said is true.
-
@vrandecic so some people equate someone lying to someone's statement being false? Then they should have a different word for someone being unintentionally wrong?
@janjko @vrandecic Her answer was false but she wasn't lying; she was simply wrong. It's only lying when you knowingly make a false statement.
-
@janjko @vrandecic Her answer was false but she wasn't lying; she was simply wrong. It's only lying when you knowingly make a false statement.
-
@poupou so before they went to the party, you consider her saying the truth?
@vrandecic @poupou The truth as she knew it, yes. It turned out that she was mistaken but she couldn't know that when she made the statement.
-
A new study shows that there is much, much less agreement on the answer to this question than I would have expected. Even after reading about the study, I still expect people in my bubble to have the same answer as I do. Let's see. But this probably means that the meaning of truth, in the general population, is simply different from what I would have assumed. And explains a number of public discourses.
2/2
The surprising divide over what counts as true
A new study finds that what people think about facts, authenticity, or coherent beliefs explains why they disagree about what is true.
Reason.com (reason.com)
@vrandecic (not having read the link) it's a question about something that could happen in the future. Therefore it's impossible for the statement to *really* be either true or false; it's a prediction based on past information; I'd say the statement is true -- that is her prediction based on previously obtained information and she's not saying anything false about what she predicts -- and whether the prediction turns out to be correct is a separate question that is not asked in the poll.
(Update) Read the link and now more confirmed that claiming Maria's statement is false is mumbo jumbo in this case. Y'all are asking the wrong question for the context, so you get a nonsensical answer.
-
@poupou so before they went to the party, you consider her saying the truth?
@vrandecic @poupou truthfulness doesn't play much of a role in this case, IMO. My take would be: She offered a justified belief, based on the information available to her. Whether or not that turned out to be actual knowledge as a justified, _true_ belief can only be evaluated after it turns out to be true or not.
-
"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner. Peter asks Maria whether Tom is at the party that they intend to go to after dinner. Maria answers that Tom is at the party. After all, Tom had told her that he would be at the party. When they arrive at the party, it turns out that Tom had changed his plans, and is not at the party. Was Maria's answer true or false?"
(please spread for visibility, I would like this to be as wide as possible)
1/2
@vrandecic A great example of truth and honesty being twin sisters rather than a single concept.
-
@vrandecic @poupou truthfulness doesn't play much of a role in this case, IMO. My take would be: She offered a justified belief, based on the information available to her. Whether or not that turned out to be actual knowledge as a justified, _true_ belief can only be evaluated after it turns out to be true or not.
@vrandecic @poupou hehe now I've given this a bit more thought. Language is a messy way of transmitting information with lots of pragmatics. Do we take the exchange at face value? Do we interpret it as the question being asked whether Maria knows for a fact that Tom will be at the party? Or is it meant to say whether Tom can be expected to be at the party from the information currently available?
-
@vrandecic @irina @janjko if Maria had said yes or no without knowing about Tom, this would neither have been a lie, but bullshit.
-
@vrandecic @poupou hehe now I've given this a bit more thought. Language is a messy way of transmitting information with lots of pragmatics. Do we take the exchange at face value? Do we interpret it as the question being asked whether Maria knows for a fact that Tom will be at the party? Or is it meant to say whether Tom can be expected to be at the party from the information currently available?
@stk @vrandecic @poupou Quantum psycholinguistic ethics teaches us that Tom was both present at and absent from the party at the same time and didn't actually become not there until Maria and Peter arrived and looked for him.
-
"Maria and Peter are students and meet up for a late dinner. Peter asks Maria whether Tom is at the party that they intend to go to after dinner. Maria answers that Tom is at the party. After all, Tom had told her that he would be at the party. When they arrive at the party, it turns out that Tom had changed his plans, and is not at the party. Was Maria's answer true or false?"
(please spread for visibility, I would like this to be as wide as possible)
1/2
@vrandecic Given Maria's knowledge of Peter's plans at the time she was asked the question, the answer she gave was true to her at the time it was given, regardless of what Peter decided to do.
Had Peter informed Maria about his change of plans before she was asked the question, the answer would have been false if she had given it as stated.
Maria answered at the best of her ability with what knowledge she had of Peter's plans at the time.
Subjective vs objective truth.
-
@stk @vrandecic @poupou Quantum psycholinguistic ethics teaches us that Tom was both present at and absent from the party at the same time and didn't actually become not there until Maria and Peter arrived and looked for him.
@msbellows @vrandecic @poupou and then they went through a double slit and ended up scattered all over the place
-
@vrandecic @irina @janjko if Maria had said yes or no without knowing about Tom, this would neither have been a lie, but bullshit.
@nichtich
Bullshit does indeed have a formal philosophical definition that seems to work here. https://philosophywithoutbullshit.com/2026/04/20/what-the-hell-bullshit-is-revising-frankfurts-definition/ -
@msbellows @vrandecic @poupou and then they went through a double slit and ended up scattered all over the place
@stk @vrandecic @poupou I mean, there's a reason Tom is NB.
-
@vrandecic @poupou The truth as she knew it, yes. It turned out that she was mistaken but she couldn't know that when she made the statement.
@irina @vrandecic @poupou I would say that she didn't know it before going to the party. She answered the question wrongly. A correct answer would have been, "I don't know if he is there or not, because I am not there. But he did tell me he is going."
Her answer was sincere, though. She made a leap of faith using the information she had and her trust in Tom. Faith can be dangerous, and in this case it led to her ultimately being wrong.
-
A new study shows that there is much, much less agreement on the answer to this question than I would have expected. Even after reading about the study, I still expect people in my bubble to have the same answer as I do. Let's see. But this probably means that the meaning of truth, in the general population, is simply different from what I would have assumed. And explains a number of public discourses.
2/2
The surprising divide over what counts as true
A new study finds that what people think about facts, authenticity, or coherent beliefs explains why they disagree about what is true.
Reason.com (reason.com)
@vrandecic Seems like a false (true?) dichotomy: true, false, uninformed/incomplete
