In regards to counterfactuals, which have been occupying my mind... Those are strictly de dicto propositions dependent on the actual world. Nothing can be said about them de re.

If I understand the distinction correctly, the change in scope of existential quantification is dictated by which perspective we assume. Does that sound correct?

Any thoughts?

Now, if I were to assert that:
"Wallows believes that 2+2=6, instead of 4"

, then are we talking about truth or the validity of epistemic content? — Wallows

I'm probably not the only one confused about this.

What is the "truth/validity of epistemic content" distinction you're making, and what is it supposed to have to do with the de re/de dicto distinction?

Furthermore, what limits or broadens the scope of the existential quantifier as having a narrow or broad scope? — Wallows

That's defined in the article you took the bulk of your post from. Is it that you don't entirely understand the distinction they're making? (I kind of understand it "in theory," but re the examples given, it becomes less clear to me, which is a weird dichotomy.)

I'm probably not the only one confused about this. — Terrapin Station

Sorry. I think I read in too deeply into the SEP entry.

What is the "truth/validity of epistemic content" distinction you're making, and what is it supposed to have to do with the de re/de dicto distinction? — Terrapin Station

I don't think I'll elaborate on nonsense. Sorry again.

That's defined in the article you took the bulk of your post from. — Terrapin Station

It's not clear to me. Care to take a shot at it? I'm not sure what the answer may be.

Is it that you don't entirely understand the distinction they're making? (I kind of understand it "in theory," but re the examples given, it becomes less clear to me, which is a weird dichotomy.) — Terrapin Station

Ok, I'm all ears.

(1) Ralph believes that someone is a spy.

This could mean either of the following.

(2) Ralph believes that there are spies

or

(3) Someone is such that Ralph believes that he is a spy. — SEP

I don't think it means either of those things.

For a start I don't think anyone ever says the sentence " Ralph believes there are spies." That is a very unnatural sentence especially without any context.

If someone said "Ralph believes there are spies" you would ask for further questions to ascertain what they meant unless the prior conversation had already contained lots of information.

The prior or later conversation would determine the exact meaning of the sentence.

I don't think it means either of those things. — Andrew4Handel

Well, those are just examples to illustrate the de re and de dicto distinction. Maybe you have a better example in mind? I can't think up any.

Well, those are just examples to illustrate the de re and de dicto distinction. Maybe you have a better example in mind? I can't think up any. — Wallows

I find this kind of philosophy hard to follow but to use something unrealistic as an example of language use undermines any argument.

It is ironic that analytic philosophy and the philosophy of language is more complicated and obscure than the language it seeks to analyse.

Quite a few years ago I studied philosophy of language but I found the examples and thought experiments totally implausible and convoluted. And also there is unnecessary jargon.

If Ralph said "Someone is out to get me" you would say "Who" and then he would tell you a person or just express his general paranoia, resolving ambiguity.

I think the meaning of a sentence is contextual and a false belief is only false if you analyse context. A lot of things are unproblematic in context and I can't think of any language that does not a occur in a rich context where there is prior and current events and many other factors influencing meaning.

For example if Ralph was a Russian and talked about being spied on that would immediately make much more sense then a suburban house wife or Amazon tribes person saying it.

I think it is absurd to try and analyse the meanings of word on their own with no context.

Here is the wiki entry on it in regards to thought:

There are two possible interpretations of the sentence "Peter believes someone is out to get him". On one interpretation, 'someone' is unspecific and Peter suffers a general paranoia; he believes that it is true that a person is out to get him, but does not necessarily have any beliefs about who this person may be. What Peter believes is that the predicate 'is out to get Peter' is satisfied. This is the de dicto interpretation.

On the de re interpretation, 'someone' is specific, picking out some particular individual. There is some person Peter has in mind, and Peter believes that person is out to get him.

In the context of thought, the distinction helps us explain how people can hold seemingly self-contradictory beliefs.[4] Say Lois Lane believes Clark Kent is weaker than Superman. Since Clark Kent is Superman, taken de re, Lois's belief is untenable; the names 'Clark Kent' and 'Superman' pick out an individual in the world, and a person (or super-person) cannot be stronger than himself. Understood de dicto, however, this may be a perfectly reasonable belief, since Lois is not aware that Clark and Superman are one and the same.

Re your earlier question, wide versus narrow scope is being used to refer to where the quantifier occurs with respect to the propositional attitude.

"Narrow" = the quantifier is after the propositional attitude = Ralph Believes ∃x (...)

"Wide" = the quantifier is before and thus includes the propositional attitude = ∃x (Ralph believes...)

Thanks that makes better sense.

As a separate question in regards to counterfactuals... Do you think we can only speak about counterfactuals de dicto and no de re?

No, I'd say that counterfactuals work just the same way. Say that there's a false belief that A.Conan Doyle based Sherlock Holmes closely on some particular, real detective. So then we have this counterfactual with de dicto and de re interpretations:

"Ralph believes that someone was the real Sherlock Holmes."

de dicto--Ralph believes there was some particular person, but Ralph has no idea whom, that served as the model for Doyle's character.

de re--Ralph believes that 19th century British detective John Smith served as the model for Doyle's character.

Say that there's a false belief that A.Conan Doyle based Sherlock Holmes closely on some particular, real detective. — Terrapin Station

Is that a counterfactual?

I had something like this in mind:
==========
I played the lottery. (Framing condition)

I didn't win the lottery. (Fact)

I won the lottery in a possible world. (Counterfactual, de dicto) (de re doesn't obtain)
==========
Thoughts?

As far as I recall it is counterfactual. I'm a pretty big Holmes/Doyle fan, by the way. If I remember correctly, Doyle was heavily inspired by Poe's C. Auguste Dupin (I'm a huge Poe fan, too, and in general I'm a big fan of pre 20th century Anglo fiction . . . Poe and Doyle are probably my two favorites), and some Holmes traits were taken from various people that Doyle knew (as is the case for most fictional characters), but it wasn't just one real-world detective who was an inspiration.

I won the lottery in a possible world. — Wallows

I would say that would be de dicto or de re depending on whether you're thinking about just hitting the lottery in general versus thinking about hitting a particular lottery. Think of the distinction as whether the sentence is about the concepts involved, in a rather general, nonspecific way, versus being about a "real-world" particular.

That's the distinction in the "someone is a spy" example. The de dicto sense is more about the concepts, and it's general, nonspecific. Ralph knows what spies are (concept), and he believes that someone--but he doesn't know who (general, non-specific)--is a spy, based on the concept, based on general info he has about the world, etc.

The de re sense is predicating something of a particular in the real world that Ralph is familiar with--namely, Ralph's neighbor, whom he believes is a spy. He believes that his neighbor has particular properties that make him a spy.

So same thing with the lottery. De dicto--you know what the lottery is, you know that it's possible to win, etc. De re--you have a particular drawing for a particular game in mind, probably a particular day, maybe a particular store you bought the ticket from, etc.

The de re sense is predicating something of a particular in the real world that Ralph is familiar with--namely, Ralph's neighbor, whom he believes is a spy. He believes that his neighbor has particular properties that make him a spy. — Terrapin Station

There it is, "in the real world" to quote from you. De re just doesn't obtain without placing one's self into the actual situation, and that simply can't be done wrt. to counterfactuals because they are inherent de dicto assertions.

It's interesting to note, that de dicto assertions don't have sense; but only reference if we are to evaluate the validity of any de dicto claim. Whereas de re assertions is almost exclusively about sense.

True or false?

"The lottery" refers to an actual situation though (in the de re version)--the Powerball drawing on October 31, 2018, the ticket I bought from the deli on 35th Street, etc.

I don't agree with that about de dicto claims.

Think about this, by the way:

"Someone is a spy" in the de re sense, so that Ralph says it with his neighbor in mind, etc.

Well, it turns out that his neighbor isn't a spy. Which means that it was a counterfactual. Was it not a de re proposition?

"The lottery" refers to an actual situation though — Terrapin Station

Yeah, again "the actual situation", can be interchangeable with "the actual world". Counterfactuals are existentially dependent on the actual world for their counter-factuality. Hence, they are purely descriptive or de dicto and not de re.

I hope you win!

"Someone is a spy" in the de re sense, so that Ralph says it with his neighbor in mind, etc.

Well, it turns out that his neighbor isn't a spy. Which means that it was a counterfactual. Was it not a de re proposition? — Terrapin Station

Let's complicate matters and say that Ralph is a schizophrenic. In his mind (de re) he is right. In fact (de facto), he is wrong (de dicto). How can this be?

Why are you putting "de re" after "in his mind" and "de dicto" after "in fact"?

Why are you putting "de re" after "in his mind" and "de dicto" after "in fact"? — Terrapin Station

Sorry, I meant to imply that de re is a phenomenological report or propositional attitude dependent on subjectivity. Whereas a de dicto is descriptive, objective, and impersonal.

Anyway, how do you evaluate a propositional attitude that is de re, contra a descriptive proposition like de dicto?

Somewhat helpful in case anyone is interested:

I think you're confusing yourself. This line from the Wikipedia entry about the distinction should help you keep them straight:

"The literal translation of the phrase 'de dicto' is 'about what is said,' whereas 'de re' translates as 'about the thing.'"

In other words, think of de dicto as being about the "proposition itself"--or as I said, about the concepts/conceptual relations of the proposition. For de re, then, it refers to particular things ("in the world"), Or you can kind of think about de dicto "pointing" to the proposition as a proposition, and de re "pointing" to some external thing, not language.

So, take the following from SEP:

"On the standard semantics for quantification, the interpretation of (3*) requires that we be able to say when an individual satisfies the open sentence ‘Ralph believes that x is a spy’. This is because the standard semantics for quantification is objectual: A quantified sentence ∃xΦx is true just in case there is an object that Φx is true of. "

What do you think about this?

I still maintain that counterfactuals are strictly de dicto and cannot be de re.