Salmon and Schiffer on belief ascriptions

Salmon and Schiffer have proposed theories of belief ascriptions accommodating well known puzzling phenomena such as a rational agent's harboring conflicting attitudes toward a proposition. I compare their accounts of this phenomenon and argue that Salmon's account is preferable because of two reasons: 1) it is more parsimonious, for it does not include types of modes of presentation into semantic analysis of belief reports; 2) it presupposes more plausible division of labor between the semantic and the pragmatic analysis of belief reports.

Keywords

Authors

References