Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:19:05.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Belief versus knowledge: An epic battle, but no clear victor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2021

Daniel Heiskell Lassiter Open the ORCID record for Daniel Heiskell Lassiter [Opens in a new window]
Daniel Heiskell Lassiter*
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA94305, USA. [email protected]://web.stanford.edu/~danlass/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The knowledge-first approach is attractive and consistent with a wide variety of evidence. So is the opposing belief-first picture. I explain why the target article's criticisms of the latter fail, and argue that the outcome is a stalemate.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e159
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Horschler, D. J., Santos, L. R., & MacLean, E. L. (2019). Do non-human primates really represent others’ ignorance? A test of the awareness relations hypothesis. Cognition, 190, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oktay-Gür, N., & Rakoczy, H. (2017). Children's difficulty with true belief tasks: Competence deficit or performance problem? Cognition, 166, 28–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oktay-Gür, N., & Rakoczy, H. (2020). Why do young children look so smart and older children look so dumb on true belief control tasks? An investigation of pragmatic performance factors. Journal of Cognition and Development.Google Scholar
Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar