What role, if any, should centered possible worlds play in characterizing the attitudes? Lewis (Philos Rev 88(4):513–543, 1979) argued (in effect) that, in order to account for the phenomena of self-location (Perry in Philos Rev 86(4):474–497, 1977, Noûs 13(1):3–21, 1979), the contents of the attitudes should be taken to be centered propositions (i.e. sets of centered worlds). Stalnaker (Our knowledge of the internal world, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, in: Brown, Cappelen (eds) Assertion: New philosophical essays, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011, Context, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014), however, has argued that while centered worlds are needed to characterize e.g. belief states, the contents of such states should be understood as ordinary, uncentered propositions (cf. Hintikka in Knowledge and belief, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1962). But Stalnaker does not, as is common, provide a semantics of attitude ascriptions based on the models he develops of the attitudinal states themselves. This paper begins to explore the prospects for doing so. It argues that a simple but well-motivated approach does not yield the principles of knowledge and belief Stalnaker endorses; and that a modification which does brings with it worries of its own surrounding communication and learnability. A technical appendix contains novel and pertinent results in doxastic/epistemic logic.

中文翻译：

---

Stalnaker 模型中的态度和归因

如果有的话，中心化的可能世界在表征态度时应该扮演什么角色？Lewis (Philos Rev 88(4):513–543, 1979) 认为（实际上）为了解释自我定位现象（Perry in Philos Rev 86(4):474–497, 1977, Noûs 13(1):3-21, 1979)，态度的内容应该被视为中心命题（即中心世界的集合）。Stalnaker（我们对内部世界的了解，牛津大学出版社，牛津，2008，在：Brown, Cappelen (eds) Assertion：新哲学论文，牛津大学出版社，牛津，2011，上下文，牛津大学出版社，牛津，2014），然而，他认为，虽然需要中心世界来表征例如信念状态，但这种状态的内容应该被理解为普通的、非中心的命题（参见知识与信念中的 Hintikka，康奈尔大学出版社，纽约州伊萨卡，1962 年）。但是 Stalnaker 并没有像常见的那样根据他开发的态度状态本身的模型提供态度归因的语义。本文开始探讨这样做的前景。它认为，简单但动机良好的方法并不能产生 Stalnaker 认可的知识和信念原则；并且确实带来了对其自身周围交流和学习能力的担忧。技术附录包含信念/认知逻辑方面的新颖且相关的结果。它认为，简单但动机良好的方法并不能产生 Stalnaker 认可的知识和信念原则；并且确实带来了对其自身周围交流和学习能力的担忧。技术附录包含信念/认知逻辑方面的新颖且相关的结果。它认为，简单但动机良好的方法并不能产生 Stalnaker 认可的知识和信念原则；并且确实带来了对其自身周围交流和学习能力的担忧。技术附录包含信念/认知逻辑中新颖且相关的结果。