Knowledge before belief in non‐human primates: A rebuttal

Several scientists and philosophers have argued that knowledge is more basic than belief, partly by appeal to evidence that non‐human primates attribute the former but not the latter. We re‐examine this evidence and argue that it is, in fact, more consistent with the presence of belief‐attribution than its absence. We also highlight the benefits of belief‐attribution and cast doubt on its alleged costs. While further research is needed to settle the debate, we recommend an attitude of cautious optimism: The understanding of the mind our close relatives possess may be more like ours than previously assumed.