I treat you as a thermometer when I use your belief states as more or less reliable indicators of the facts. Should I treatmyselfin a parallel way? Should I think of the outputs of my faculties and yours as like the readings of two thermometers the way a third party would? I explore some of the difficulties in answering these questions. If I am to treat myself as well as others as thermometers in this way, it would appear that I cannot reasonably trust my own convictions over yours unless I have antecedent reason to suppose that I am more likely than you to get things right. I appeal to some probabilistic considerations to suggest that our predicament as thermometers might not actually be as bad as it seems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roger M. White (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: