Draft:Epistemic Modals, Experimental Data
| Submission declined on 29 November 2024 by Funnyfarmofdoom (talk). This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner. This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
|  |
If the previous example feels too much of an abstraction, we can return to the one put forward by the relativists themselves (MacFarlane 2011)[1]. Data collected by Knobe & Yalcin (2014)[2] posed a modal and nonmodal[1] variation of (11) to a sample of one hundred fifty nine participants. They found a significant difference in the degree to which participants thought the original modal (11a) was false, and the degree to which they though it worth retracting. By a mean average[2], a retraction of the original statement was considered generally appropriate (need for retraction averaging 5.4 on a on a 1-7 Likert scale where 1 is ‘completely disagree’ and 7 is ‘completely agree’) even while the statement itself was considered true slightly more than it was considered false (agreement to ‘(11a) is false’ averaging 3.2 on the same scale).
This matches with the relativist decision to allow for retraction of might statements when the prejacent is shown to have been false. But it does not square with rendering the full modal statement itself false. The original modal statement seems to somehow remain true, even as we decide to retract it. If truth is sensitive to changes in context, it is not purely sensitive to changes in the context of assessment.
[1] Identical other than Sally saying ‘is’ instead of ‘might be’. [2] Mean error for both being ±0.6.
