A. M. Egan

Self-locating beliefs are beliefs about one’s position or situation in the world, as opposed to beliefs about how the world is in itself. Section 1 of this entry introduces self-locating beliefs. Section 2 presents several distinct arguments that self-locating beliefs constitute a theoretically distinctive category. These arguments are driven by central examples from the literature; we categorize the examples by the arguments to which they contribute. (Some examples serve multiple strands of argument at once.) Section 3 examines positive proposals for modeling self-locating belief, focusing on the two most prominent proposals, due to Lewis and Perry. Section 4 discusses another, quite distinct phenomenon that motivates some discussions of self-locating belief: immunity to error through misidentification. Section 5 takes up issues arising in the philosophy of language—in particular in theories of communication. Section 6 discusses issues arising in decision theory and formal epistemology. We close with a brief taxonomy of objections to the claim that self-locating beliefs constitute a distinctive category.

This chapter motivates a fragmentationist research program by identifying a cluster of problems that such a research program is better positioned to address or resolve than a unified model—all instances of the phenomenon of subjects having information that’s available to them for some behavior-guiding purposes but that isn’t available for every purpose. It also identifies some of the challenges and research questions that the fragmentationist program will need to address and where the space of possible answers is not yet well charted. One cluster of such problems is about how to construct fragmented models of belief, and another cluster is about normative questions that arise concerning the rational evaluation of fragmented beliefs and believers.

Sometimes our speech actsSpeech acts go really well. They’re in good normative order when we make them, and our relationship with them remains happy ever after. We continue to endorse them, continue to be content to stand by them, continue to endorse our conversation’s being in whatever state they put it in to, and continue to be content to bear whatever commitments we undertook by making them. But sometimes not. Sometimes we want to disavow a previous speech actSpeech acts. Maybe because we’ve learned that it wasn’t in good normative order when we made it. Maybe because we no longer endorse the change in conversational state that it brought about, or because we want to get out from under some commitment that the speech actSpeech acts saddled us with. When this happens, we’re liable to retract the speech actSpeech acts. We’ll use one of a variety of locutions—“never mind”, “scratch that”, “I take it back”, “I guess I was wrong”, “wait, that’s not right”, for example—to, somehow or other, do something that’s aptly described as retracting or taking back or disavowing our previous speech actSpeech acts. Retraction is something that definitely happens, and the process(es) by which it happens are something that any completed account of linguistic communication will need to include an account of. (And that any partial account will need to leave room for). What’s not a sure thing is the correct theoretical characterization of what we’re doing when we retract. In this paper I’ll take up three questions about retraction: The first is the question of reductionism vs. anti-reductionism about retraction—is there a special, sui generis speech actSpeech acts of retraction, or does retraction always proceed by way of some speech actSpeech acts of a familiar type? (Asserting the negation, apologizing, etc.) The second is the question of what kind of theoretical framework for thinking about speech actsSpeech acts provides the most natural home for anti-reductionism about retraction—a framework that puts the speaker-side norms governing the use of speech actsSpeech acts on the theoretical ground floor, or one that puts audience- or context-side effects on the ground floor? (Spoiler: Effects-first views are better.) Finally, I argue that thinking about retraction gives us some helpful leverage in thinking about the effects of assertion, motivating a view according to which assertions are best thought of as endorsements of forward-looking constraints on the conversational context, and that this view of assertion is independently attractive.

A very simple contextualist treatment of a sentence containing an epistemic modal, e.g. a might be F, is that it is true iff for all the contextually salient community knows, a is F. It is widely agreed that the simple theory will not work in some cases, but the counterexamples produced so far seem amenable to a more complicated contextualist theory. We argue, however, that no contextualist theory can capture the evaluations speakers naturally make of sentences containing epistemic modals. If we want to respect these evaluations, our best option is a relativist theory of epistemic modals. On a relativist theory, an utterance of a might be F can be true relative to one context of evaluation and false relative to another. We argue that such a theory does better than any rival approach at capturing all the behaviour of epistemic modals.

The past decade has seen a protracted debate over the semantics of epistemic modals. According to contextualists, epistemic modals quantify over the possibilities compatible with some contextually determined group’s information. Relativists often object that contextualism fails to do justice to the way we assess utterances containing epistemic modals for truth or falsity. However, recent empirical work seems to cast doubt on the relativist’s claim, suggesting that ordinary speakers’ judgments about epistemic modals are more closely in line with contextualism than relativism (Knobe & Yalcin 2014; Khoo 2015). This paper furthers the debate by reporting new empirical research revealing a previously overlooked dimension of speakers’ truth-value judgments concerning epistemic modals. Our results show that these judgments vary systematically with the question under discussion in the conversational context in which the utterance is being assessed. We argue that this ‘QUD effect’ is difficult to explain if contextualism is true, but is readily explained by a suitably flexible form of relativism.

This chapter focuses on relativism, and outlines debate about relativism about epistemic modals. The debate will be helpful to say a bit more about the structure of contextualist theories, since contextualism is the main competitor to relativism, and probably is the default starting point view. Accordingly, much of the motivation for relativism comes from the purported inadequacy of the contextualist options. The chapter looks at some of the important features of contextualist views in general. It discusses the internal workings of two different sorts of relativist theories and some standard arguments relativists have deployed to motivate relativism over contextualism. The chapter traces a few of the first steps of the ensuing dialectic of reply and objection and looks at a number of the standard replies to relativist arguments. It looks at some of the anti‐relativists' responses to the relativists' positive arguments.