In “Must ...stay ...strong!” (von Fintel and Gillies in Nat Lang Semant 18:351–383, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2), we set out to slay a dragon, or rather what we called The Mantra: that epistemic must has a modal force weaker than expected from standard modal logic, that it doesn’t entail its prejacent, and that the best explanation for the evidential feel of must is a pragmatic explanation. We argued that all three sub-mantras are wrong and offered an explanation according to which must is strong, entailing, and the felt indirectness is the product of an evidential presupposition carried by epistemic modals. Mantras being what they are, it is no surprise that each of the sub-mantras have been given new defenses. Here we offer them new problems and update our picture, concluding that must is (still) strong.

在“必须...保持...坚强！”中 （von Fintel和Gillies在Nat Lang Semant 18：351–383，2010年。https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-010-9058-2），我们着手杀死一条龙，或更确切地说，我们称其为口头禅：认识论必须具有比标准模态逻辑所期望的弱的模态力，它并不意味着它具有局限性，而对必须的证据感觉的最佳解释是一种务实的解释。我们认为这三个子咒都是错误的，并根据必须解释强烈，强烈，感觉到的间接性是认知模态所承载的证据预设的产物。咒语就是它们的本质，不足为奇，每个子咒语都获得了新的防御。在这里，我们为他们提供了新的问题和更新我们的图像，得出的结论是必须的（仍然）强。