I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern Physics and offer my thesis, dedicated to my wife, who anchors me in reality.
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger. Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the "wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.