Philosophical Studies

, Volume 129, Issue 2, pp 317–333 | Cite as

The Frame Problem and Theories of Belief

  • Scott Hendricks


The frame problem is the problem of how we selectively apply relevant knowledge to particular situations in order to generate practical solutions. Some philosophers have thought that the frame problem can be used to rule out, or argue in favor of, a particular theory of belief states. But this is a mistake. Sentential theories of belief are no better or worse off with respect to the frame problem than are alternative theories of belief, most notably, the “map” theory of belief.


Alternative Theory Practical Solution Belief State Relevant Knowledge Frame Problem 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Braddon-Mitchell, D., Jackson, F. 1996Philosophy of Mind and CognitionBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Churchland, P.S. 1986NeurophilosophyMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Davies, M. (1998): Language and Thought, ‘Language, Thought and the Language of Thought (Aunty’s Own Argument Revisited)’, in P. Carruthers and J. Boucher (eds.), New York: Cambridge UPGoogle Scholar
  4. Dreyfus, H. 1992What Computers Still Can’t DoMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, G. 1982The Varieties of ReferenceOxford UPNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Field, H. (1981): ‘Mental Representation’, reprinted in N. Block (ed.), Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol.2, Cambridge: Harvard UPGoogle Scholar
  7. Fodor, J. 1975The Language of ThoughtCrowellNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fodor J. (1981) ‘Propositional Attitudes’, reprinted in Representations, Cambridge: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Fodor, J. 1983Modularity of MindMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Glymour, C. 1987‘Android Epistemology and the Frame Problem’Pylyshyn, Z. eds. The Robot’s DilemmaAblexNorwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Harman, G. 1973ThoughtPrinceton UPPrincetonGoogle Scholar
  12. Haugeland, J. 1985Artificial Intelligence: The Very IdeaMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Haugeland, J. 1987‘An Overview of the Frame Problem’Pylyshyn, Z. eds. The Robot’s DilemmaAblexNorwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes, P. 1987‘What the Frame Problem Is and Isn’t’Pylyshyn, Z. eds. The Robot’s DilemmaAblexNorwood, NJGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson, F. (1998): ‘Mental Causation Without the Language of Thought’, in Mind, Method and Conditionals: Selected Essays, New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. 1986On the Plurality of WorldsBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. 1994‘Lewis, David: Reduction of Mind’Guttenplan, S. eds. A Companion to the Philosophy of MindBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Lormand, E. 1990‘Framing the Frame Problem’Synthese82353374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lormand, E. 1996‘The Holorobophobe’s Dilemma’Pylyshyn, Z.Ford, K. eds. The Robot’s Dilemma RevisitedAblexNorwood NJGoogle Scholar
  20. McCarthy, J., Hayes, P. 1969‘Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence’Meltzer, B.Michie, D. eds. Machine Intelligence 4Edinburgh UPEdinburghGoogle Scholar
  21. McGinn, C. 1989Mental ContentBlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollock, J., Cruz, J. 1999Contemporary Theories of Knowledge2Rowman & LittlefieldLanham, MDGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyClark UniversityWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations