Big difference

An article by Ronald Bailey in Reason describes a study done in Europe.

= = = = = START QUOTE:

Scenario: Maria and Peter are eating 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.

Question: Was Maria’s answer true or false?

= = = = = END QUOTE.

Of course it was true! Instantly obvious, no second thoughts or conundrum. Maria was judging by her own knowledge at the time she spoke, which is the only thing anybody can do. Tom’s presence has zero connection with Maria’s truthfulness.

If they had asked “Was Tom at the party?” I’d give a NULL or N/A answer. I wasn’t there, so I have no way of knowing ANYTHING about the party.

Author Bailey saw it the other way:

It’s pretty clear that Maria’s answer is false, at least from my point of view. However, the study, published in Cognition, shockingly found that only just over 50 percent of participants would agree with me.

Why is it shocking? My answer is scientific. Science measures things directly and refuses to talk about things that aren’t measured. (See Carver.) Our experience persuades us that things do exist when we’re not observing them, but that wasn’t the question. The question was about Maria’s truth, not the truth of the scenario as narrated.