Truth and perspective

Abstract Several studies in experimental philosophy and semantics have shown that a substantial number of English speakers consider a statement true even if it does not align with the facts, as long as it is justified from the speaker's perspective. These findings challenge the prevailing view among philosophers that truth in the empirical domain is uniformly based on a statement's correspondence to reality. In this study, we explore how perspective-taking influences truth assessments by showing that this influence depends on how the critical question assessing the statement’s truth is phrased. Our results show that when the question targets only the proposition, e.g., “Is it true that [the uttered proposition]?”), participants typically apply a correspondence view of truth—consistent with philosophical convention. But when the question also highlights the speaker (e.g., “Is [the speaker]’s answer true?”), many participants shift toward judging the statement from the speaker’s perspective. We discuss four possible explanations for this behavior and examine the implications of the findings for other philosophical discussions concerning truth and lying, the theory of reference, and norms of assertion.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophical Studies
Published
2025-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02389-7
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
17.27

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Truth and perspective

Kevin Reuter, Giuseppe Carlo Ricciardi
1 citations
Philosophical Studies
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
17.27
article

Truth and perspective

Kevin Reuter, Giuseppe Carlo Ricciardi
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Abstract Several studies in experimental philosophy and semantics have shown that a substantial number of English speakers consider a statement true even if it does not align with the facts, as long as it is justified from the speaker's perspective. These findings challenge the prevailing view among philosophers that truth in the empirical domain is uniformly based on a statement's correspondence to reality. In this study, we explore how perspective-taking influences truth assessments by showing that this influence depends on how the critical question assessing the statement’s truth is phrased. Our results show that when the question targets only the proposition, e.g., “Is it true that [the uttered proposition]?”), participants typically apply a correspondence view of truth—consistent with philosophical convention. But when the question also highlights the speaker (e.g., “Is [the speaker]’s answer true?”), many participants shift toward judging the statement from the speaker’s perspective. We discuss four possible explanations for this behavior and examine the implications of the findings for other philosophical discussions concerning truth and lying, the theory of reference, and norms of assertion.

Philosophical Studies
University of Gothenburg (SE)
Göteborgs Universitet
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
17.27
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.