Abstract

This chapter focuses on a set of arguments whose upshot is that, whatever tacit knowledge of the axiomatic base of a semantic theory is, it cannot be construed as a genuine propositional attitude or intentional state. It outlines three criticisms that Crispin Wright has raised against Evans's dispositionalist account of tacit knowledge of semantic axioms, and the responses that have been offered by Martin Davies on Evans's behalf. The chapter outlines Wright's alternative proposal, and argues that it presupposes, rather than undercuts, the Evans‐Davies account which proceeds via the imposition of the mirror constraint. It attempts to defend the suggestion that the construction of theories of meaning should be subject to Davies's mirror constraint. The chapter concludes by considering whether the project of constructing semantic theories in accordance with the mirror constraint is in tension with Wittgenstein's reflections on rule‐following.