Epistemic contextualism in the style of Lewis (in Aust J Philos 74:549–567, 1996) maintains that ascriptions of knowledge to a subject vary in truth with the alternatives that can be eliminated by the subject’s evidence in a context. Schaffer (in Philos Stud 119:73–103, 2004, in Oxford Stud Epistemol 1:235–271, 2005, in Philos Phenomenol Res 75:383–403, 2007, in Philos Issues 18(1):1–19, 2008, in: Schaffer, Loewer (eds) A companion to David Lewis, pp 473–490. Wiley, Hoboken, 2015), Schaffer and Knobe (in Noûs 46:675–708, 2012), and Schaffer and Szabó (in Philos Stud 168(2):491–543, 2014) hold that the question under discussion or qud always determines these alternatives in a context. This paper shows that the qud does not perform such a role for know and uses this result to draw a few lessons about the metasemantics of context-sensitivity.
Epistemic contextualism Question under discussion qudContrastivism Knowledge Metasemantics
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
King, J. C. (2014b). The metasemantics of contextual sensitivity. In A. Burgess & B. Sherman (Eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning (pp. 97–118). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, R. (2017). Conversational kinematics. In J. Ichikawa (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic contextualism (pp. 321–347). Abingdon on Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mion, G., & Gauker, C. (2017). The mind-independence of contexts for knowledge attributions. In J. Ichikawa (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of epistemic contextualism (pp. 455–464). Abingdon on Thames: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montminy, M. (2013). The role of context in contextualism. Synthese, 190(12), 2341–2366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, A. (2012). Contrastive knowledge. In M. Blaauw (Ed.), Philosophical explorations (pp. 74–89). Abingdon on Thames: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stokke, A. (2016). Lying and misleading in discourse. Philosophical Review, 125(1), 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrett, K., & Koev, T. (2015). Experimental evidence for the truth conditional contribution and shifting informational status of appositives. Journal of Semantics, 32(3), 525–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonhauser, J. (2012). Diagnosing (not-)at-issue content. Proceedings of Semantics of Under-represented Languages of the Americas, 6, 239–254.Google Scholar