Can a Question Be a Lie? An Empirical Investigation

Emanuel Viebahn; Alexander Wiegmann; Neele Engelmann; Pascale Willemsen

doi:10.3998/ergo.1144

Can a Question Be a Lie? An Empirical Investigation

Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy ◽

10.3998/ergo.1144 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (0) ◽

Author(s):

Emanuel Viebahn ◽

Alexander Wiegmann ◽

Neele Engelmann ◽

Pascale Willemsen

Keyword(s):

Empirical Investigation

In several recent papers and a monograph, Andreas Stokke argues that questions can be misleading, but that they cannot be lies. The aim of this paper is to show that ordinary speakers disagree. We show that ordinary speakers judge certain kinds of insincere questions to be lies, namely questions carrying a believed false presupposition the speaker intends to convey. These judgements are robust and remain so when the participants are given the possibility of classifying the utterances as misleading or as deceiving. The judgements contrast with judgements participants give about cases of misleading or deceptive behaviour, and they pattern with judgements participants make about declarative lies. Finally, the possibility of lying with non-declaratives is not confined to questions: ordinary speakers also judge utterances of imperative, exclamative and optative sentences carrying believed-false presuppositions to be lies.

Download Full-text

Self-Esteem and the SCII: Empirical Investigation of a Clinical Observation

Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance ◽

10.1080/00256307.1979.12022188 ◽

1979 ◽

Vol 12 (2) ◽

pp. 82-86

Author(s):

Karen Friedel ◽

Jo-Ida Hansen ◽

Thomas J. Hummel ◽

Warren F. Shaffer

Keyword(s):

Empirical Investigation ◽

Clinical Observation ◽

Self Esteem

Download Full-text

Self-Injurious Behavior vs. Nonsuicidal Self-Injury

Crisis ◽

10.1027/0227-5910/a000127 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 33 (2) ◽

pp. 106-112 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Christopher M. Bloom ◽

Shareen Holly ◽

Adam M. P. Miller

Keyword(s):

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Empirical Investigation ◽

High Stress ◽

Animal Research ◽

Stress Conditions ◽

Human Populations ◽

Pharmacological Interventions ◽

Self Injury ◽

Cns Stimulant ◽

Nonsuicidal Self Injury

Background: Historically, the field of self-injury has distinguished between the behaviors exhibited among individuals with a developmental disability (self-injurious behaviors; SIB) and those present within a normative population (nonsuicidal self-injury; NSSI),which typically result as a response to perceived stress. More recently, however, conclusions about NSSI have been drawn from lines of animal research aimed at examining the neurobiological mechanisms of SIB. Despite some functional similarity between SIB and NSSI, no empirical investigation has provided precedent for the application of SIB-targeted animal research as justification for pharmacological interventions in populations demonstrating NSSI. Aims: The present study examined this question directly, by simulating an animal model of SIB in rodents injected with pemoline and systematically manipulating stress conditions in order to monitor rates of self-injury. Methods: Sham controls and experimental animals injected with pemoline (200 mg/kg) were assigned to either a low stress (discriminated positive reinforcement) or high stress (discriminated avoidance) group and compared on the dependent measures of self-inflicted injury prevalence and severity. Results: The manipulation of stress conditions did not impact the rate of self-injury demonstrated by the rats. The results do not support a model of stress-induced SIB in rodents. Conclusions: Current findings provide evidence for caution in the development of pharmacotherapies of NSSI in human populations based on CNS stimulant models. Theoretical implications are discussed with respect to antecedent factors such as preinjury arousal level and environmental stress.

Download Full-text