Can We Believe What We Do Not Understand?

<jats:p><jats:bold>Abstract: </jats:bold> In a series of papers, Sperber provides the following analysis of the phenomenon of ill‐understood belief (or ‘quasi‐belief’, as I call it): (i) the quasi‐believer has a validating meta‐belief, to the effect that a certain representation is true; yet (ii) that representation does not give rise to a plain belief, because it is ‘semi‐propositional’. In this paper I discuss several aspects of this treatment. In particular, I deny that the representation accepted by the quasi‐believer is semantically indeterminate, and I reject Sperber's claim that quasi‐belief is a credal attitude distinct from plain belief.</jats:p>