Philosophical Studies

, Volume 138, Issue 1, pp 29–53 | Cite as

The indexicality of ‘knowledge’

Original Paper


Epistemic contextualism—the view that the content of the predicate ‘know’ can change with the context of utterance—has fallen into considerable disrepute recently. Many theorists have raised doubts as to whether ‘know’ is context-sensitive, typically basing their arguments on data suggesting that ‘know’ behaves semantically and syntactically in a way quite different from recognised indexicals such as ‘I’ and ‘here’ or ‘flat’ and ‘empty’. This paper takes a closer look at three pertinent objections of this kind, viz. at what I call the Error-Theory Objection, the Gradability Objection and the Clarification-Technique Objection. The paper concludes that none of these objections can provide decisive evidence against contextualism.


Knowledge Context Contextualism Epistemic contextualism Indexicality Context-sensitivity Gradable adjectives 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach, K. (2005). The emperor’s new ‘knows’. In G. Preyer, & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: On epistemology, language and truth (pp. 51–89). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  2. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. (1988). How to be a fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 57–89.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, S. (2004). Contextualism and unhappy-face solutions: Reply to Schiffer. Philosophical Studies, 119, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. (2005). Knowledge, speaker and subject. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, W. A. (2004). Are knowledge claims indexical? Erkenntnis, 61, 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeRose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review, 104, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman, R. (1999). Contextualism and skepticism. Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 91–114.Google Scholar
  11. Halliday, D. (forthcoming). Contextualism, comparatives and gradability. Philosophical Studies Google Scholar
  12. Hawthorne J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  13. Kamp, H. (1975). Two theories of adjectives. In E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 123–155). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  14. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford/New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  16. Kompa, N. (2002). The context sensitivity of knowledge ascriptions. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 64, 1–18.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74, 649–567.Google Scholar
  18. Ludlow, P. (2005). Contextualism and the new linguistic turn in epistemology. In G. Preyer, & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy – knowledge, meaning and truth (pp. 11–50). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  19. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In T. Gendler, & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (pp. 197–233). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  20. Pritchard, D. (2002). Recent work on radical skepticism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39, 215–257.Google Scholar
  21. Richard, M. (2004). Contextualism and relativism. Philosophical Studies, 119, 215–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schaffer, J. (forthcoming). Skepticism, Contextualism, and Discrimination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Google Scholar
  23. Schiffer S. (1996). Contextualist solutions to scepticism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 96, 317–333.Google Scholar
  24. Stanley, J. (2004). On the linguistic basis for contextualism. Philosophical Studies, 119, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  26. Unger, P. (1975). Ignorance: A case for scepticism. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  27. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  28. Williamson, T. (2001). Comments on Michael Williams’ contextualism, externalism and epistemic standards. Philosophical Studies, 103, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Williamson, T. (2005a). Contextualism, subject-sensitive invariantism, and knowledge of knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson, T. (2005b). Knowledge, context and the agent’s point of view. In G. Preyer, & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: On epistemology, language and truth (pp. 91–114). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  31. Yourgrau, P. (1983). Knowledge and relevant alternatives. Synthese, 55, 175–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University CollegeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations