Shareability of Belief

Davidson argues that there is a common system of beliefs which we share along with other speakers belonging to the same linguistic community. Thus the beliefs that I hold are roughly the same beliefs that other speaker holds. For him, shareability of belief is a fact which is often unnoticed by us. In fact in our everyday life we understand each other, communicate with each other, and even disagree with each other. This shows that we share most of our beliefs. In the absence of shareability of beliefs communication will be impossible. For example, when two people disagree with each other on a certain fact we see only the differences but we do not see the common ground that is shared by the two speakers. It is this common ground which makes their disagreement possible. Hence, a disagreement also presupposes a system of commonly shared beliefs. "An important fact about belief is that a belief is never seen in isolation from other beliefs because it is always supported by a dense pattern of beliefs. It is within this pattern or system the particular belief is identified and described" (Dasgupta, 1999, 309).

In Davidson's account, belief plays an important role for determining the meanings of utterances of a speaker. Meanings of utterances of a speaker are determined by three conditions. First, by assigning his/her beliefs to the sentences by the interpreter; second, by holding his/her belief to be true; and the third, by supposing his/her intention must be good⁸ while uttering the sentences. These three are the tasks of an interpreter so as to interpret the language of the other speakers.

The above mentioned three conditions claim that one can understand the meanings of the speaker's utterances. Further, Davidson argues that in assigning belief to others we go by the principle of charity. That is, we take others as having the same beliefs and desires like our own. Proceeding a step ahead to search for true belief Davidson introduces the notion of Omniscient Interpreter (Here after, OI).⁹ This notion states that an OI is one who being an interpreter shares most of his beliefs with other speakers and being omniscient his beliefs cannot be wrong. From this analysis it follows that the speaker's beliefs are true since they are concurrent with the beliefs held by the OI. This compels Davidson to claim that there must be a separate place for OI in the theory of interpretation.

Now a question may be raised from the standpoint of a skeptic regarding the correctness of beliefs. Responding to this question Davidson says that for a skeptic to doubt the correctness of our belief must satisfy the two following preconditions without which he cannot intelligibly presume his doubt.

He/she must share his/her beliefs with us
These beliefs must be largely true

If a skeptic has to meaningfully doubt the correctness of others' beliefs he has to detect mistake in others' beliefs. This will be possible only through the interpretation of others' beliefs. But for interpretation to be possible the skeptic has to satisfy the above stated two conditions. He can interpret only if he shares his beliefs with others and if such beliefs are true then as Davidson argues skepticism will be self-defeating.

The nature of belief is not a hypothetical postulation because it interlinks with various behavioral, biological and neurological phenomena as well as various propositional attitudes such as, anxiety, hopes, desires, etc. The relationship between beliefs and these elements are so connected that the former cannot be interpreted in isolation from the latter. As a result, beliefs assume a complicated structure which can be grasped only when they are expressed through language. This happens because meaning and belief jointly form a nexus.

⁸	The term 'good' expresses the idea that there should not be any bad intentions found behind the speaker's utterances.
⁹	This term is borrowed from Davidson, D. (1984). The Method of Truth in Metaphysics. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, P.201.