Abstract

I doubt whether these three theses, which characterize basic features of Davidson's conception of meaning, are coherent. The narrow sense of (1) has (2) as an obvious corollary. The wider sense of (1), or some aspects of it, is partly explicated by (3). But this doesn’t seem to cohere with (2). When theory of meaning is taken in the wider sense to include an account of how one could come to know that such a theory of truth was true (for a given language), and when the full force of the marriage between meaning and belief, as in (3), is appreciated, (2) seems to me doubtful