Let us suppose that it is a Context-Dependence claim of that type that Heck wants to defend. What reasons does he provide for endorsing it? At ﬁrst, he is reticent:
However, he later provides the basis for an argument:
Since our concern is with what is thought, rather than what is said, the case we are interested in should be framed in those terms. Furthermore, since our concern is with what is thought, rather than with reports about what is thought, Heck’s case requires further amendment. For it is well known that reports of what someone said or thought can be reﬂectively acceptable even though they fail precisely to specify their subjects’ thoughts. And that is so, especially, when the reports involve indexicals or demonstratives. So amended, the following is a version of the type of consideration that Heck offers.