Some philosophers argued that the concept of belief involves a truth-norm according to which a belief is correct if and only if true. The truth-norm has been the object of some criticisms. In particular, in my talk I consider three criticisms directed to the possibility that the agent is guided by the norm. The problems are 1) that the satisfaction conditions of the norm do not bear on an action, but on a possible state of affairs; 2) that the requirment of the norm is not transparent to the agent, and 3) that beliefs are not under one's voluntary control. I consider and criticize a possible solution to such problems suggested by some philosophers according to which the truth-norm would be regulated by a set of subjective norms - such as norms of evidence, rationality, and similar norms. I defend an alternative solution based on a neat distinction between norms and practices of norm-regulation.
