Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 193, Issue 8, pp 2577–2593 | Cite as

Skeptical pragmatic invariantism: good, but not good enough

  • Alexander Dinges
Article

Abstract

In this paper, I will discuss what I will call “skeptical pragmatic invariantism” (SPI) as a potential response to the intuitions we have about scenarios such as the so-called bank cases. SPI, very roughly, is a form of epistemic invariantism that says the following: The subject in the bank cases doesn’t know that the bank will be open. The knowledge ascription in the low standards case seems appropriate nevertheless because it has a true implicature. The goal of this paper is to show that SPI is mistaken. In particular, I will show that SPI is incompatible with reasonable assumptions about how we are aware of the presence of implicatures. Such objections are not new, but extant formulations are wanting for reasons I will point out below. One may worry that refuting SPI is not a worthwhile project given that this view is an implausible minority position anyway. To respond, I will argue that, contrary to common opinion, other familiar objections to SPI fail and, thus, that SPI is a promising position to begin with.

Keywords

Epistemic invariantism Epistemic contextualism Skepticism Implicatures Implicitures Pragmatic invariantism 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Michael Blome-Tillmann, Elke Brendel, Aurélien Darbellay, Mikkel Gerken, Beate Krickel, David Lanius, Dan López de Sa, David Löwenstein, Erik Stei, Emanuel Viebahn, Julia Zakkou and the participants of the Fifth Annual Graduate Epistemology Conference (Edinburgh, 2015) for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

References

  1. Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach, K. (2010). Knowledge in and out of context. In J. K. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & H. Silverstein (Eds.), Knowledge and skepticism. Topics in contemporary philosophy (pp. 105–136). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumann, P. (2011). WAMs: Why worry? Philosophical Papers, 40(2), 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blome-Tillmann, M. (2013). Knowledge and implicatures. Synthese, 190(18), 4293–4319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BonJour, L. (2010). The myth of knowledge. Philosophical Perspectives, 24(1), 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, S. (2005). Contextualism defended. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology. Contemporary debates in philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 56–62). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Conee, E. (2005a). Contextualism contested. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology. Contemporary debates in philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 47–56). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Conee, E. (2005b). Contextualism contested some more. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology. Contemporary debates in philosophy (Vol. 3, pp. 62–66). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, W. A. (2004). Are knowledge claims indexical? Erkenntnis, 61(2/3), 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, W. A. (2007). Knowledge claims and context: Loose use. Philosophical Studies, 132(3), 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis, W. A. (2010). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context, vol. 1, by Keith DeRose. Mind, 119(476), 1152–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, W. A. (2015). Knowledge claims and context: Belief. Philosophical Studies, 172(2), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeRose, K. (2012). Replies to Nagel, Ludlow, and Fantl and McGrath. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 84(3), 703–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimmock, P., & Huvenes, T. (2014). Knowledge, conservatism, and pragmatics. Synthese, 191, 3239–3269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dinges, A. (2015a). Epistemic invariantism and contextualist intuitions. Episteme, FirstView, 1–14.Google Scholar
  17. Dinges, A. (2015b). Innocent implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 54–63.Google Scholar
  18. Douven, I. (2007). A pragmatic dissolution of Harman’s paradox. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74(2), 326–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fantl, J., & McGrath, M. (2009). Knowledge in an uncertain world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerken, M. (2012). On the cognitive basis of knowledge ascriptions. In J. Brown & M. Gerken (Eds.), Knowledge ascriptions (pp. 140–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hansen, N., & Chemla, E. (2013). Experimenting on contextualism. Mind & Language, 28(3), 286–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. MacFarlane, J. (2005). The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology. Oxford studies in epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 197–234). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. MacFarlane, J. (2011). Relativism and knowledge attributions. In S. Bernecker & D. Pritchard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to epistemology (pp. 536–544). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Meibauer, J. (2009). Implicature. In J. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 365–378). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  27. Schaffer, J. (2004). Skepticism, contextualism, and discrimination. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(1), 138–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sosa, E. (1999). How to defeat opposition to Moore. Philosophical Perspectives, 33(13), 141–153.Google Scholar
  29. Unger, P. (1971). A defense of skepticism. The Philosophical Review, 80(2), 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Philosophisches SeminarUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations