Erkenntnis

, Volume 61, Issue 2–3, pp 257–281

Are Knowledge Claims Indexical?

Article

Abstract

David Lewis, Stewart Cohen, and Keith DeRose have proposed that sentences of the form “S knows P” are indexical, and therefore differ in truth value from one context to another.1 On their indexical contextualism, the truth value of “S knows P” is determined by whether S meets the epistemic standards of the speaker’s context. I will not be concerned with relational forms of contextualism, according to which the truth value of “S knows P” is determined by the standards of the subject S’s context, regardless of the standards applying to the speaker making the knowledge claim. Relational contextualism is a form of normative relativism. Indexical contextualism is a semantic theory. When the subject is the speaker, as when “S” is the first person pronoun “I,” the two forms of contextualism coincide. But otherwise, they diverge. I critically examine the principal arguments for indexicalism, detail linguistic evidence against it, and suggest a pragmatic alternative.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Annis, D.B. 1978‘A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification’American Philosophical Quarterly15213219Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J.L. 1961‘Other Minds’Oxford University PressOxford76116in Philosophical PapersGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. 1986‘Knowledge and Context’Journal of Philosophy83574583Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. 1987‘Knowledge, Context, and Social Standards’Synthese73326Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, S. 1988‘How to Be a Fallibilist’Philosophical Perspectives2581605Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. 1999‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’Philosophical Perspectives135789Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. 2000a‘Contextualism and Skepticism’Philosophical Issues1094107Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. 2000b‘Replies’Philosophical Issues10132139Google Scholar
  9. Davis, W.A. 1998Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean TheoryCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, W.A. 2003Meaning, Expression, and ThoughtCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. DeRose, K. 1995‘Solving the Skeptical Problem’Philosophical Review104152Google Scholar
  12. Dretske, F. 1970‘Epistemic Operators’Journal of Philosophy6710071023Google Scholar
  13. Dretske, F. 1981The Pragmatic Dimension of KnowledgePhilosophical Studies40363378Google Scholar
  14. Feldman, F. 1999‘Contextualism and Skepticism’Philosophical Perspectives1391114Google Scholar
  15. Fogelin, R.J. 2000a‘Contextualism and Externalism: Trading in one Form of Skepticism for Another’Philosophical Issues104357Google Scholar
  16. Fogelin, R.J. 2000b‘Replies’Philosophical Issues108693Google Scholar
  17. Fumerton, R. 1987

    Nozick’s Epistemology

    Luper-Foy, S. eds. The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His CriticsRowman and LittlefieldTotowa, NJ163181
    Google Scholar
  18. Grice, H.P. 1975

    Logic and Conversation

    Cole, P.Morgan, J. eds. Syntax and SemanticsAcademic PressNew YorkVol. 3
    Google Scholar
  19. Grice, H.P. 1978

    Further Notes on Logic and Conversation

    Cole, P. eds. Syntax and SemanticsAcademic PressNew York113128Vol. 9
    Google Scholar
  20. Grice, H.P. 1981

    Presupposition and Conversational Implicature

    Cole, P. eds. Radical PragmaticsAcademic PressNew York183198
    Google Scholar
  21. Hawthorne, J. 2000‘Reply to Cohen’Philosophical Issues10117120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heller, M. 1999‘Contextualism and Anti-luck Epistemology’Philosophical Perspectives13115129Google Scholar
  23. Horn, L.R. 1992

    Pragmatics, Implicature and Presupposition

    Bright, W. eds. International Encyclopedia of LinguisticsOxford University PressNew York260266Vol. 2
    Google Scholar
  24. Klein, P. 2000‘Contextualism and Academic Skepticism’Philosophical Issues10108116Google Scholar
  25. Kornblith, H. 2000‘The Contextualist Evasion of Epistemology’Philosophical Issues102432Google Scholar
  26. Leech, G. 1983Principles of PragmaticsLongmansLondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehrer, K. 2000‘Sensitivity, Indiscernibility, and Knowledge’Philosophical Issues103337Google Scholar
  28. Levinson, S.C. 1983PragmaticsCambridge University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, D.,  et al. 1979

    Scorekeeping in a Language Game

    Bäuerle, R. eds. Semantics from Different Points of ViewSpringerBerlin172187
    Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, D. 1996‘Elusive Knowledge’Australasian Journal of Philosophy74549567Google Scholar
  31. Neale, S. 1990‘Descriptive Pronouns and Donkey Anaphora’Journal of Philosophy87113150Google Scholar
  32. Neale, S. 1992‘Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language’Linguistics and Philosophy15509559Google Scholar
  33. Nozick, R. 1981Philosophical ExplanationsHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, J.F. 2000‘Scrutinizing a Trade’Philosophical Issues105866Google Scholar
  35. Sadock, J.M. 1978

    On Testing for Conversational Implicature

    Cole, P. eds. Syntax and SemanticsAcademic PressAcademic Press281297Vol. 9
    Google Scholar
  36. Schiffer, S. 1996‘Contextualist Solutions to Scepticism’Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society96317333Google Scholar
  37. Searle, J. 1975

    Indirect Speech Acts

    Cole, P.Morgan, J.L. eds. Syntax and SemanticsAcademic PressNew York5982Vol. 3
    Google Scholar
  38. Sosa, E. 1988‘Knowledge in Context, Skepticism in Doubt: The Virtue of our Faculties’Philosophical Perspectives2139155Google Scholar
  39. Sosa, E. 2000‘Skepticism and Contextualism’Philosophical Issues10118Google Scholar
  40. Unger, P. 1975Ignorance: A Case for SkepticismClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Unger, P. 1984Philosophical RelativityUniversity of Minnesota PressMinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  42. Valdés-Villanueva, L.M. 2000‘Contextualism and Levels of Scrutiny’Philosophical Issues107279Google Scholar
  43. Vogel, J. 1999‘The New Relevant Alternatives Theory’Philosophical Perspectives13155180Google Scholar
  44. Williams, M.J. 2000‘Is Contextualism Statable?’Philosophical Issues108085Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyGeorgetown University WashingtonWashington DCUSA

Personalised recommendations