True belief reports and the sharing of beliefs

Journal of Philosophical Research 23 (January):331-342 (1998)
Authors
Heimir Geirsson
Iowa State University
Abstract
In recent years Russell´s view that there are singular propositions, namely propositions that contain the individuals they are about, has gained followers. As a response to a number of puzzles about attitude ascriptions several Russellians (as I will call those who accept the view that proper names and indexicals only contribute their referents to the propositions expressed by the sentences in which they occur), including David Kaplan and Nathan Salmon, have drawn a distinction between what proposition is believed and how it is believed.1 While it is generally agreed upon among Russellians that this distinction needs to be drawn there is considerable disagreement as to what exactly the distinction amounts to and what role the what and the how should play. The most plausible option seems to be to not assign a semantic value to the cognitive role played by the name or indexical in the sentence assented to. But recently Mark Richard2 has attempted to make the cognitive role affect truth values by building it into the truth conditions of belief reports.3 I will argue that Richard’s attempt fails to satisfy our pretheoretical intuitions about the sharing of beliefs. Furthermore, and more surprisingly, I will argue that Richard’s theory makes it virtually impossible for us to judge whether or not most belief reports are true or false, since doing so would involve what I call RAM probing, which would require viewing elements that are essentially private.
Keywords Belief  Epistemology  Truth  Kaplan, D  Russell  Salmon, N  structured propositions  propositions
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.5840/jpr_1998_2
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 34,999
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Pragmatic Solution to Ostertag's Puzzle.Philip Atkins - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (2):359-365.
Understanding Belief Reports.David Braun - 1998 - Philosophical Review 107 (4):555-595.
Faith, Probability and Infinite Passion.Robert C. Koons - 1993 - Faith and Philosophy 10 (2):145-160.
Propositions and Attitudes.Nathan U. Salmon & Scott Soames (eds.) - 1988 - Oxford University Press.
Does Belief Have an Aim?David J. Owens - 2003 - Philosophical Studies 115 (3):283-305.
Do Belief Reports Report Beliefs?Kent Bach - 1997 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 78 (3):215-241.
Partial Propositions and Cognitive Content.Heimir Geirsson - 1996 - Journal of Philosophical Research 21:117-128.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
92 ( #68,387 of 2,274,949 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #375,297 of 2,274,949 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature