The fundamental idea of my proof theory is none other than to describe the activity of our understanding, to make a protocol of the rules according to which our thinking actually proceeds" (Hilbert, 1928, 475).
Note, however, that this broad sense of "thinking" is contrasted with a narrower one according to which only ideal objects like numbers are said to be "thought" (cf. 1911a, 104).
A case in point would be Brentano's (1933) theory of accidents, according to which a mind is a proper part of a thinking mind even though there is nothing to make up for the difference.
Williamson clearly is correct, however, in thinking that the sameness of evidence requirement is incompatible with his own preferred account of evidence, according to which one's evidence consists of all and only those propositions that one knows.
Later he says that he is glad to have stamped out the view according to which we do not have anything definite in our thinking (Metaph IV 4 1009a3–5).
In Sigwart's case, Husserl criticizes, amongst other things, the view according to which it would be wrong to assume that a judgment could be true even if no intellect were ever thinking this judgment.
The fines imposed on GM and Toyota have dramatically changed industry thinking, according to US car analyst Karl Brauer.
But dogmatic he was not, and always ready to change his thinking according to new experimental data.
Mr. Hubbard, the dean of Columbia University's business school, "would rather be Treasury secretary than Federal Reserve chairman," according to Bloomberg News, which cites unidentified people familiar with his thinking.
