ABSTRACT
This paper argues for the necessity of deploying commonsense mental predicates in the descriptions of domestic animals. Though there are differences that set important constraints on what it makes sense to say, relevant similarities are identified in the considerations by which we would justify these testimonials for animals and for ourselves. Using Alexandra Horowitz’s study of the domestic dog as a foil, this paper defends her general approach while at the same time identifying and mounting a strategy for avoiding philosophical snares—residual allegiances to Cartesian and Intellectualist views of the mind—which, though rife in the cognitive sciences and philosophy, threaten to obfuscate discussions of both human and animal minds.
