Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 8, pp 1717–1740 | Cite as

The pragmatics of pragmatic encroachment

Article

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to defend Simple Modest Invariantism (SMI) about knowledge from the threat presented by pragmatic encroachment. Pragmatic encroachment is the view that practical circumstances are relevant in some way to the truth of knowledge ascriptions—and if this is true, it would entail the falsity of SMI. Drawing on Ross and Schroeder’s recent Reasoning Disposition account of belief, I argue that the Reasoning Disposition account, together with Grice’s Maxims, gives us an attractive pragmatic account of the connection between knowledge ascriptions and practical circumstances. This gives us the ability to explain away the data that is supposed to support pragmatic encroachment. Finally, I address three important objections to the view offered by giving a pragmatic account of when it is conversationally appropriate to cancel a conversational implicature, and discussing when sentences with true content can end up sounding false as well as cases where sentences with false content can end up sounding true.

Keywords

Epistemology Pragmatic encroachment Knowledge ascriptions Pragmatics Bank and Airport cases 

References

  1. Adler, J. (2011). Contextualism and fallibility: Pragmatic encroachment, possibility and strength of epistemic position. Synthese, 23, 1–26.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. (2005). Adapt or die: The death of invariantism? Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219), 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, J. (2006). Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres. Philosophical Studies, 130(3), 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, J. (2008). Subject-sensitive invariantism and the knowledge norm for practical reasoning. Noûs, 42(2), 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, S. (1999). Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons. Philosophical Perspectives, 13(s13), 57–89.Google Scholar
  6. Dallmann, J. (ms). Credences and epistemic norms.Google Scholar
  7. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52(4), 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeRose, K. (2002). Assertion, knowledge, and context. Philosophical Review, 111(2), 167–203.Google Scholar
  9. Dodd, D. (2010). Confusion about concessive knowledge attributions. Synthese, 172(3), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dougherty, T. (2009). Against pragmatic encroachment: A defense of simple moderate invariantism. Dissertation, Rochester University.Google Scholar
  11. Dougherty, T., & Rysiew, P. (2009). Fallibilism, epistemic possibility, and concessive knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 78(1), 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dougherty, T., & Rysiew, P. (2011). Clarity about concessive knowledge attributions: Reply to Dodd. Synthese, 181, 395–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fantl, J., & Mcgrath, M. (2007). On pragmatic encroachment in epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(3), 558–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman, R. (2007). Knowledge and lotteries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75(1), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Halliday, D. (2005). What explains our intuitions about knowledge ascriptions? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 105(3), 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hawthorne, J., & Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 571–590.Google Scholar
  19. Lackey, J. (2010). Acting on knowledge. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Littlejohn, C. (2011). Concessive knowledge attributions and fallibilism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 83(3), 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Oxford Studies in Epistemology, 1, 197–233.Google Scholar
  23. Montminy, M. (2007). Epistemic contextualism and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. Synthese, 155(1), 99–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pritchard, D. (2005). Contextualism, skepticism, and warranted assertibility maneuvers. In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & H. Silverstein (Eds.), Knowledge and skepticism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ross, J., & Schroeder, M. (2012). Belief, credence, and pragmatic encroachment. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. .Google Scholar
  26. Rysiew, P. (2001). The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions. Noûs, 35(4), 477–514.Google Scholar
  27. Rysiew, P. (2005). Contesting contextualism. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 69(1), 51–70.Google Scholar
  28. Rysiew, P. (2007). Speaking of knowing. Noûs, 41(4), 627–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stanley, J. (2005). Fallibilism and concessive knowledge attributions. Analysis, 65(286), 126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unger, P. K. (1975). Ignorance: A case for scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Weatherson, B. (2005). Can we do without pragmatic encroachment? Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 417–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mudd Hall of PhilosophyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations