Synthese

, Volume 191, Issue 15, pp 3541–3556 | Cite as

Epistemic contextualism can be stated properly

Article

Abstract

It has been argued that epistemic contextualism faces the so-called factivity problem and hence cannot be stated properly. The basic idea behind this charge is that contextualists supposedly have to say, on the one hand, that knowledge ascribing sentences like “S knows that S has hands” are true when used in ordinary contexts while, on the other hand, they are not true by the standard of their own context. In my paper, I want to show that the argument to the factivity problem fails because it rests on the mistaken premise that contextualists are committed to the truth of particular ordinary knowledge attributions.

Keywords

Factivity problem Knowledge norm of assertion  Epistemic contextualism Knowability problem 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Elke Brendel, Christoph Jäger, Geert Keil, Crispin Wright, Julia Zakkou and the participants of the EJK Seminar at Arché (St Andrews, 2013), Tobias Rosefeldt’s Lehrstuhlkolloquium (Berlin, 2013), the LOGOS Seminar and GRG (Barcelona, 2011) and Geert Keil’s Lehrstuhlkolloquium (Berlin, 2011). Thanks also to two anonymous referees for this journal. Very special thanks to Dan López de Sa for invaluable discussion at every stage of the development of this paper.

References

  1. Ashfield, M. (2013). Against the minimalistic reading of epistemic contextualism: A reply to Wolfgang Freitag. Acta Analytica, 28(1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumann, P. (2008). Contextualism and the factivity problem. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(3), 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumann, P. (2010). Factivity and contextualism. Analysis, 70(1), 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brendel, E. (2005). Why contextualists cannot know they are right: Self-refuting implications of contextualism. Acta Analytica, 20(2), 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brendel, E. (2009). Contextualism, relativism, and factivity. Analyzing ‘knowledge’ after the new linguistic turn in epistemology. In A. Hieke & H. Leitgeb (Eds.), Reduction, abstraction, analysis (pp. 403–416). Frankfurt am: Ontos Verla.Google Scholar
  6. Brueckner, A. (2012). Skepticism and content externalism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  7. Brueckner, A., & Buford, C. T. (2009). Contextualism, SSI and the factivity problem. Analysis, 69(3), 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brueckner, A., & Buford, C. T. (2010). Reply to Baumann on factivity and contextualism. Analysis, 70(3), 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. (1983). A coherence theory of truth and knowledge. In D. Henrich (Ed.), Kant oder Hegel? Über Formen der Begründung in der Philosophie (pp. 423–438). Stuttgart: Veröffentlichungen der Internationalen Hegel-Vereinigung, 12, Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, W. A. (2007). Knowledge claims and context: Loose use. Philosophical Studies, 132(3), 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeRose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. The Philosophical Review, 104(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeRose, K. (1999). Introduction: Responding to skepticism. In K. DeRose & T. A. Warfield (Eds.), Skepticism: A Contemporary Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. DeRose, K. (2002). Assertion, knowledge, and context. The Philosophical Review, 111(2), 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Freitag, W. (2011). Epistemic contextualism and the knowability problem. Acta Analytica, 26(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freitag, W. (2013). In defence of a minimal conception of epistemic contextualism: A reply to M. D. Ashfield’s response. Acta Analytica, 28(1), 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Jäger, C. (2012). Contextualism and the knowledge norm of assertion. Analysis, 72(3), 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kompa, N. (2005). The semantics of knowledge attributions. Acta Analytica, 20(1), 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (pp. 197–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Montminy, M. (2008). Can contextualists maintain neutrality? Philosopher’s Imprint, 8(7), 1–13.Google Scholar
  22. Rysiew, P. (2007). Speaking of knowing. Noûs, 41(4), 627–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiffer, S. (1996). Contextualist solutions to scepticism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 96, 317–333.Google Scholar
  24. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests., Short philosophical books Oxford: xford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vogel, J. (1990). Are there counterexamples to the closure principle? In M. D. Roth & G. Ross (Eds.), Doubting: Contemporary perspectives on skepticism (pp. 13–27). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Williamson, T. (2001). Comments on Michael Williams’ contextualism, externalism and epistemic standards’. Philosophical Studies, 103(1), 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williamson, T. (2005). Knowledge and skepticism. In F. Jackson & M. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of contemporary philosophy (pp. 681–700). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Wright, C. (2005). Contextualism and scepticism: Even-handedness, factivity and surreptitiously raising standards. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219), 236–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for PhilosophyHumboldt University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations