Acta Analytica

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 111–125 | Cite as

Against the Minimalistic Reading of Epistemic Contextualism: A Reply to Wolfgang Freitag

Article

Abstract

Several philosophers have argued that the factivity of knowledge poses a problem for epistemic contextualism (EC), which they have construed as a knowability problem. On a proposed minimalistic reading of EC’s commitments, Wolfgang Freitag argues that factivity yields no knowability problem for EC. I begin by explaining how factivity is thought to generate a contradiction out of paradigmatic contextualist cases on a certain reading of EC’s commitments. This reductio results in some kind of reflexivity problem for the contextualist when it comes to knowing her theory: either a knowability problem or a statability problem. Next, I set forth Freitag’s minimalistic reading of EC and explain how it avoids the reductio, the knowability problem and the statability problem. I argue that despite successfully evading these problems, Freitag’s minimalistic reading saddles EC with several other serious problems and should be rejected. I conclude by offering my own resolution to the problems.

Keywords

Epistemic contextualism Factivity Reflexivity problem Knowability problem Statability problem Even-handedness 

References

  1. Baumann, P. (2008). Contextualism and the factivity problem. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76(3), 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumann, P. (2010). Factivity and contextualism. Analysis, 70(1), 82–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blamey, J. (2008). What do they know? Think, 6, 121–127.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 H. Leitgeb & A. Hieke (Eds.), Reduction and elimination in philosophy and the sciences (pp. 403–416). Frankurt: Ontos.Google Scholar
  6. Brueckner, A., & Buford, C. T. (2009). Contextualism, SSI and the factivity problem. Analysis, 69(3), 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brueckner, A., & Buford, C. T. (2010). Reply to Baumann on factivity and contextualism. Analysis, 70(3), 486–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. (1988). How to be a fallibilist. Philosophical Perspectives, 2, 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, S. (2001). Contextualism defended: comments on Richard Feldman’s skeptical problems, contextualist solutions. Philosophical Studies, 103, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeRose, K. (1991). Plantinga, presumption, possibility, and the problem of evil. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(4), 497–512.Google Scholar
  11. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52(4), 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeRose, K. (1995). Solving the skeptical problem. Philosophical Review, 104(1), 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose, K. (2000). Now you know it, now you don’t. Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Vol. V, Epistemology: 91–106. Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center.Google Scholar
  14. DeRose, K. (2004). Single scoreboard semantics. Philosophical Studies, 119, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Engel, M., Jr. (2004). What’s wrong with contextualism, and a noncontextualist resolution of the skeptical paradox. Erkenntnis, 61, 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freitag, W. (2011). Epistemic contextualism and the knowability problem. Acta Analytica, 26(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazlett, A. (2010). The myth of factive verbs. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80(3), 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1996). Elusive knowledge. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4), 549–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stjernberg, F. (2009). Restricting factiveness. Philosophical Studies, 146, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williamson, T. (2001). Comments on Michael Williams’ “Contextualism, externalism and epistemic standards”. Philosophical Studies, 103, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Williamson, T. (2002). Knowledge and its limits. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wright, C. (2005). Contextualism and scepticism: even-handedness, factivity and surreptitiously raising standards. Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219), 236–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations