Synthese

, Volume 188, Issue 2, pp 247–272 | Cite as

Contextualism and fallibility: pragmatic encroachment, possibility, and strength of epistemic position

Article

Abstract

A critique of conversational epistemic contextualism focusing initially on why pragmatic encroachment for knowledge is to be avoided. The data for pragmatic encroachment by way of greater costs of error and the complementary means to raise standards of introducing counter-possibilities are argued to be accountable for by prudence, fallibility and pragmatics. This theme is sharpened by a contrast in recommendations: holding a number of factors constant, when allegedly higher standards for knowing hold, invariantists still recommend assertion (action), while contextualists do not. Given the knowledge norm of assertion, if one recommendation is preferable to the other, the result favors the preferred recommendation’s account of knowledge. In the final section, I offer a unification of these criticisms centering on the contextualist use of ‘epistemic position’. Their use imposes on threshold notions of justification, warrant, or knowledge tests that are suitable only to unlimited comparative or scalar notions like confidence or certainty and places them at one with an important strand of sceptical reasoning.

Keywords

Contextualism Invariantism Raised costs of errors Possibilities (counter-possibilities) Lewis Cohen DeRose Unger Pragmatics Fallibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler J. (2002) Belief’s own ethics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler J. (2006) Withdrawal and contextualism. Analysis 66: 280–285Google Scholar
  3. Alston W. (1980) Level confusions in epistemology. Midwest Studies in Philosophy: Studies in Epistemology V: 135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin J. L. (1970) Other minds. In: Urmson J. O., Warnock G. J. (eds) In his philosophical papers 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 76–116Google Scholar
  5. Bach K. (2005) The Emperor’s new ‘knows’. In: Preyer G., Peter G. (eds) Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning, and truth. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 51–89Google Scholar
  6. Blome-Tillmann M. (2008) The indexicality of ‘knowledge’. Philosophical Studies 138: 29–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Bratman M. (1992) Practical reasoning and acceptance in a context. Mind 101: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown J. (2008) Subject-sensitive invariantism and the knowledge norm for practical reasoning. Nous 42: 167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burge T. (1993) Content preservation. The Philosophical Review 102: 457–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke T. (1972) The legacy of scepticism. Journal of Philosophy 69: 754–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen L. J. (1977) The probable and the provable. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen S. (1988) How to be a falllibilist. Philosophical Perspectives 2: 581–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen S. (1999) Contextualism, scepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives 33: 57–89Google Scholar
  15. Comesaña J. (2009) What lottery problem for reliabilism?. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 90: 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeRose K. (1992) Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52: 913–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeRose K. (1995) Solving the sceptical problem. The Philosophical Review 104: 1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeRose K. (2002) Assertion, knowledge, and context. The Philosophical Review 111: 167–203Google Scholar
  19. DeRose K. (2005) The ordinary language basis for contextualism and the new invariantism. Philosophical Quarterly 55: 172–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeRose K. (2006) Bamboozled by our own words: Semantic blindness and some arguments against contextualism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73: 316–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press (A number of the previous articles are extended chapters in this book).Google Scholar
  22. Descartes, R. (1996). Meditations on first philosophy (J. Cottingham, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dougherty T., Rysiew P. (2009) Fallibilism, epistemic possibility, and concessive knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78: 123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Douven I. (2006) Assertion, knowledge, and rational credibility. Philosophical Review 115: 449–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Douven I. (2007) A pragmatic dissolution of Harman’s paradox. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74: 326–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Douven I. (2008) Knowledge and practical reasons. Dialectica 62: 101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dretske F. (1970) Epistemic operators. Journal of Philosophy 67: 1007–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dretske F. (1981) Knowledge and the flow of information. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  29. Dretske F. (2005) The case against closure. In: Steup M., Sosa E. (eds) Contemporary debates in epistemology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  30. Elgin C. (2004) True enough. Philosophical Issues: Epistemology 14: 113–131Google Scholar
  31. Falmagne R., Gonsalves J., Bennett-Lau S. (1994) Children’s linguistic intuitions about factive presuppositions. Cognitive Development 9: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fantl J., McGrath M. (2002) Evidence, pragmatics, and justification. The Philosophical Review 111: 67–94Google Scholar
  33. Fantl J., McGrath M. (2007) Knowledge and the purely epistemic: In favor of pragmatic encroachment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75: 558–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fantl J., McGrath M. (2009) Advice for fallibilists: Put knowledge to work. Philosophical Studies 142: 55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Grice, H. P. (1989). Logic and conversation: Further notes on logic and conversation. In his Studies in the way of words (pp. 22–57). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hawthorne J. (2004) Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Hawthorne J., Stanley J. (2008) Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy 105: 571–590Google Scholar
  38. Hetherington S. (2001) Good knowledge, bad knowledge. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lackey J. (2003) Norms of assertion. Nous 41: 594–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laudan L. (1990) Demystifying underdetermination. In: Savage C. W. (ed) Scientific theories Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 267–297Google Scholar
  41. Leite A. (2007) How to link knowledge and assertion without going contextualist: A reply to derose’s ‘assertion, knowledge, and context’. Philosophical Studies 134: 111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levi I. (1980) The enterprise of knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Lewis, D. (1983). Scorekeeping in a language-game. In his Philosophical papers (Vol. I, pp. 233–249). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Lewis, D. (1999). Elusive knowledge. In his Papers in metaphysics and epistemology (pp. 418–445). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Littlejohn C. (2009) Must we act only on what we know?. Journal of Philosophy 106: 463–473Google Scholar
  46. MacFarlane J. (2009) Nonindexical contextualism. Synthese 166: 231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mellor H. (1971) The matter of chance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Montminy, M. (2008). Can contextualists maintain neutrality? Philosophers, 8, 1–13. http://www.philosophersimprint.org/00800.
  49. Reed B. (2010) A defense of stable invariantism. Nous 44: 224–244Google Scholar
  50. Rysiew P. (2001) The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Nous 35: 477–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rysiew, P. (2007). Epistemic contextualism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/entries/contextualism-epistemology/.
  52. Schiffer S. (1996) Contextualist solutions to scepticism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96: 317–333Google Scholar
  53. Sosa E. (2000) Scepticism and contextualism. Philosophical Issues: Scepticism 10: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sosa E. (2005) Dreams and philosophy. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 79: 7–18Google Scholar
  55. Stanley J. (2005) Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stroud B. (1984) The significance of philosophical scepticism. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Turri J. (2010) Epistemic invariantism and speech act contextualism. Philosophical Review 119: 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Unger P. (1975) Ignorance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Vogel J. (1990) Are there counterexamples to closure?. In: Roth M. D., Ross G. (eds) Doubting. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weatherson B. (2005) Can we do without pragmatic encroachment?.  Philosophical Perspectives 19: 417–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wedgwood, R. (2008). Contextualism about justified belief. Philosophers, 8, 1–20 www.philosophersimprint.org/008009/
  62. Weiner M. (2005) Must we know what we say?. Philosophical Review 114: 227–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weiner, M. (2007). Norms Of assertion. Philosophy Compass, 2.Google Scholar
  64. Williams B. A. O. (1978) Descartes: The project of oure inquiry. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams M. (1996) Unnatural doubts. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  66. Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Williamson T. (2005) Contextualism, subject-sensitive invariantism, and knowledge of knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly 55: 213–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brooklyn College and the Graduate SchoolCUNYNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations