Abstract
When a belief is cited as part of the explanation of an agent’s behaviour,
it seems that the belief is explanatorily relevant in virtue of its content. In his
Explaining Behavior, Dretske presents an account of belief, content, and explanation
according to which this can be so. I supply some examples of beliefs whose explanatory
relevance in virtue of content apparently cannot be accounted for in the Dretskean
way. After considering some possible responses to this challenge, I end by discussing
how serious these counterexamples are for Dretske’s account.