Philosophical Studies

, Volume 130, Issue 3, pp 407–435 | Cite as

Contextualism and Warranted Assertibility Manoeuvres

  • J. BrownEmail author


Contextualists such as Cohen and DeRose claim that the truth conditions of knowledge attributions vary contextually, in particular that the strength of epistemic position required for one to be truly ascribed knowledge depends on features of the attributor’s context. Contextualists support their view by appeal to our intuitions about when it’s correct (or incorrect) to ascribe knowledge. Someone might argue that some of these intuitions merely reflect when it is conversationally appropriate to ascribe knowledge, not when knowledge is truly ascribed, and so try to accommodate these intuitions even on an invariantist view. DeRose (Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, 1998; Philosophical Review, 2002) argues that any such ‘warranted assertibility manoeuvre’, or ‘WAM’, against contextualism is unlikely to succeed. Here, I argue that his objections to a WAM against contextualism are not persuasive and offer a pragmatic account of the data about ascriptions of knowledge.


Cohen Contextualism DeRose warranted assertibility manoeuvres 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bach, K. 1994‘Conversational Impliciture’Mind and Language9124162Google Scholar
  2. Bach, K. 2001‘Speaking Loosely: Sentence Nonliterality’MidWest Studies in Philosophy25249263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (Forthcoming (a)): ‘The Emperor’s New ‘Knows”, in G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: On Epistemology, Language and Truth, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K. (Forthcoming (b)): ‘Descriptions: Points of Reference’, in A. Bezuidenhout and M. Reimer (eds.), On Descriptions: Semantic and Pragmatic Perspectives, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  5. Borg, E. 2004Minimal SemanticsOUPOxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Carston, R. 1988‘Implicature, Explicature and Truth-theoretic Semantics’Kempson,  eds. Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality.CUPCambridge155181Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. 1988‘How to be a Fallibilist’Philosophical Perspectives291123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. 1998‘Contextualist Solutions to Epistemological Problems: Scepticism, Gettier and the Lottery’Australasian Journal of Philosophy76289306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, S. 1999‘Contextualism, Scepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’Philosophical Perspectives135789Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, S. 2000‘Contextualism and Scepticism’Philosophical Issues1094107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, S. (Forthcoming): ‘Knowledge, Speaker and Subject’, Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
  12. DeRose, K. 1991‘Epistemic Possibilities’Philosophical Review100581605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeRose, K. 1992‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions’Philosophy and Phenomenological Research52913929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeRose, K. (1995): ‘Solving the Sceptical Problem’, Philosophical Review104, 1–52. Page references from K. DeRose and T. Warfield (eds.), (1999): Scepticism, (pp. 183–219), Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. DeRose, K. 1998‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defence’Greco, Sosa.,  eds. Blackwell Guide to Epistemology.BlackwellOxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. DeRose, K. (2000): ‘How Do We Know We’re Not Brains In Vats’, Spindel Supplement to the Southern Journal of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  17. DeRose, K. (2002): ‘Assertion, Knowledge and Context’, Philosophical Review.Google Scholar
  18. DeRose, K. 2004a‘Single Scoreboard Semantics’Philosophical Studies119121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DeRose, K. 2004b‘The Problem with Subject-Sensitive Invariantism’Philosophy and Phenomenological ResearchLXVIII346350Google Scholar
  20. Donnellan, K. (1966): ‘Reference and Definite Descriptions’, Philosophical Review 75.Google Scholar
  21. Dretske, F. 1970‘Epistemic Operators’Journal of Philosophy6710071023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grice, H.P. (1975): ‘Logic and Conversation’, In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, London: Academic Press. Page references from R. Harnish (ed.), (1994) Basic Topics in the Philosophy of Language (pp. 57–73), Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  23. Grice, H.P. 1989Studies in the Way of WordsHUPCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Kripke, S. 1977‘Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference’MidWest Studies in Philosophy2255276Google Scholar
  25. Hawthorne, J. 2004Knowledge and LotteriesOUPOxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis, D. 1996‘Elusive Knowledge’Australasian Journal of Philosophy74549567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nozick, R. 1981Philosophical ExplanationsOUPOxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Rysiew, P. 2001‘The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions’Nous35477514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saul, J. 2002‘What is said and Psychological Reality; Grice’s Project and Relevance Theorists’ Criticisms’Linguistics and Philosophy25347372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaffer, J. (Forthcoming): ‘Scepticism, Contextualism and Discrimination’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
  31. Sosa, E. 1999‘How to Defeat Opposition to Moore’Philosophical Perspectives13141154Google Scholar
  32. Sperber, D., Wilson, D. 1986RelevanceHUPCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Stanley, J. 2004‘On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism’Philosophical Studies119119146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stanley, J. (Forthcoming): ‘Context, Interest-Relativity and Knowledge’, Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Stanley, J., Szabo, Z. 2000‘On Quantifier Domain Restriction’Mind and Language15219261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stine, G. 1976‘Scepticism, Relevant Alternatives and Deductive Closure’Philosophical Studies29249261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weatherson, B. (2003): ‘Thoughts, Arguments and Rants: the Bank Cases’,

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyBristol UniversityBristolUK

Personalised recommendations