在公共场合撤回

IF 1.3 1区哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Synthese Pub Date : 2023-10-26 DOI:10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3

Manuel Almagro, David Bordonaba-Plou, Neftalí Villanueva

{"title":"在公共场合撤回","authors":"Manuel Almagro, David Bordonaba-Plou, Neftalí Villanueva","doi":"10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several recent studies (see Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo, 2015; Marques, 2018; Kneer, 2021a) address linguistic retraction from an experimental perspective. In these studies, speakers’ intuitions regarding the mandatory nature of retraction are tested. Pace MacFarlane, competent speakers (of English) do not consider retraction to be obligatory. This paper examines two methodological features of the above-mentioned studies: they do not take into consideration the difference between public and private contexts; neither do they incorporate the distinction between evaluative and descriptive statements. In this paper, we report the results of two studies conducted to empirically test the hypothesis that retraction is, above all, a public phenomenon. Our findings show that context exerts a significant effect on speakers’ attitudes toward retraction.","PeriodicalId":49452,"journal":{"name":"Synthese","volume":"38 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retraction in public settings\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Almagro, David Bordonaba-Plou, Neftalí Villanueva\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Several recent studies (see Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo, 2015; Marques, 2018; Kneer, 2021a) address linguistic retraction from an experimental perspective. In these studies, speakers’ intuitions regarding the mandatory nature of retraction are tested. Pace MacFarlane, competent speakers (of English) do not consider retraction to be obligatory. This paper examines two methodological features of the above-mentioned studies: they do not take into consideration the difference between public and private contexts; neither do they incorporate the distinction between evaluative and descriptive statements. In this paper, we report the results of two studies conducted to empirically test the hypothesis that retraction is, above all, a public phenomenon. Our findings show that context exerts a significant effect on speakers’ attitudes toward retraction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":49452,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Synthese\",\"volume\":\"38 2\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Synthese\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Synthese","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

最近的几项研究(见Knobe &Yalcin, 2014;邱,2015;品牌,2018;Kneer, 2021a)从实验角度探讨语言撤回。在这些研究中，说话者关于强制收回的直觉被测试。流利的(英语)讲话者并不认为收回原文是必须的。本文考察了上述研究的两个方法论特征:它们没有考虑公共和私人背景之间的差异;它们也没有区分评价性陈述和描述性陈述。在本文中，我们报告了两项研究的结果，这些研究是为了实证检验撤回首先是一种公共现象的假设。研究结果表明，语境对说话人的撤回态度有显著影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Retraction in public settings

Abstract Several recent studies (see Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo, 2015; Marques, 2018; Kneer, 2021a) address linguistic retraction from an experimental perspective. In these studies, speakers’ intuitions regarding the mandatory nature of retraction are tested. Pace MacFarlane, competent speakers (of English) do not consider retraction to be obligatory. This paper examines two methodological features of the above-mentioned studies: they do not take into consideration the difference between public and private contexts; neither do they incorporate the distinction between evaluative and descriptive statements. In this paper, we report the results of two studies conducted to empirically test the hypothesis that retraction is, above all, a public phenomenon. Our findings show that context exerts a significant effect on speakers’ attitudes toward retraction.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Synthese 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

13.30%

发文量

471

审稿时长

1 months

期刊介绍： Synthese is a philosophy journal focusing on contemporary issues in epistemology, philosophy of science, and related fields. More specifically, we divide our areas of interest into four groups: (1) epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science, all broadly understood. (2) The foundations of logic and mathematics, where ‘logic’, ‘mathematics’, and ‘foundations’ are all broadly understood. (3) Formal methods in philosophy, including methods connecting philosophy to other academic fields. (4) Issues in ethics and the history and sociology of logic, mathematics, and science that contribute to the contemporary studies Synthese focuses on, as described in (1)-(3) above.