Abstract
Jones overstates his case when he labels ethnographic belief ascription as `inherently risky' and `fraught with fundamental epistemological difficulties'. The logical problem he identifies is this: ethnographic techniques of observation and interrogation cannot determine with certainty whether particular beliefs actually exist in the form of mental objects of psychological structures in the minds of subjects. But there is no evidence that ethnographers believe themselves to be describing mental objects or psychological structures in their work. The problems of accurately ascribing beliefs to others are real enough, but they are practical, not logical, and ethnography remains the best method for overcoming them.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
