the linguistic roles of the constituents of the quantum theoretical formalism according to which at least one of the assumptions necessary to derive the paradoxes is not wrong (in which case one might speak of a *solution* rather than a dissolution) but conceptually ill-formed. The motivation underlying these approaches is “therapeutic” inasmuch as they aim at “curing” us from what they see as unfounded worries about foundational issues based on conceptual misunderstandings. More specifically, the accounts to be discussed are grounded in the hope that a *non-ontic* reading of quantum states—a reading which construes quantum states as having a non-descriptive linguistic role, which differs from that of representing reality—may hold the key to conceive of the theory in such a way that the paradoxes do not arise in the first place.

The defining characteristic of non-ontic readings of quantum states is that they reject the notion of a *true* quantum state of a quantum system—a quantum state it *is in*.[^1] Non-ontic readings of quantum states mostly embrace some version of the *epistemic* conception of quantum states—the view that quantum states somehow reflect the state-assigning agents’ epistemic relations to the systems states are assigned to[^2]—and the present paper focuses on these. 