Epistemic ‘must p’ is literally a strong statement

doi:None

Title	Authors

Files | Discussion Wiki | Discussion | Discussion

Home

Follow this link to join a zoom meeting if you have any question or comment to add. https://harvard.zoom.us/j/552542370 The strength of ‘epistemic must’ statements has been long debated in the theoretical literature and more recently in the experimental literature. Here, we focus on Lassiter’s (2016; L16) assessment of von Fintel & Gillies [F&G] (2010)’s hypothesis that ‘must p’ defines ‘p’ as a deductive/necessary conclusion and L16’s hypothesis that ‘must p’ defines ‘p’ as an inductive/probabilistic conclusion. In this work, we report a replication of L16 and 2 follow-up studies which encourage participants to understand L16’s “agree”/“disagree” task as a truth-value judgment task about the literal meaning of the statements. Our results support F&G’s hypothesis over L16’s hypothesis.

OSF does not support the use of Internet Explorer. For optimal performance, please switch to another browser.

This website relies on cookies to help provide a better user experience. By clicking Accept or continuing to use the site, you agree. For more information, see our Privacy Policy and information on cookie use.

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Free and easy to use, the Open Science Framework supports the entire research lifecycle: planning, execution, reporting, archiving, and discovery.

Create an Account Learn More Hide this message

Main content

Home

Menu

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.

Main content

Links to this project

Home

Menu

Add new wiki page

Page permissions have changed

Wiki page deleted

Connected to the collaborative wiki

Connecting to the collaborative wiki

Collaborative wiki is unavailable

Browser unsupported

Start managing your projects on the OSF today.