Advertisement

Keeping the Conversational Score: Constraints for an Optimal Contextualist Answer?

  • Verena Gottschling

Abstract

Conversational contextualism states that the truth-conditions expressed by knowledge-attributing sentences vary relative to the context of utterance. This context is determined partly by different standards the person involved must meet in order to make the sentence true. I am concerned with the question of how these standards can be raised or lowered, and especially what happens to the standards and the conversational score when parties in a discussion push the conversational scores in different directions. None of the available options for an answer seems satisfying. I argue that this results from a misunderstanding of the characteristics of the situation at hand.

Keywords

Knowledge Ascription Veto Power Personal Standard Epistemic Standard Conversational Contextualism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, K.: forthcoming, ‘The Emperor’s New ‘Knows’’, in G. Preyer and G. Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: On Epistemology, Language and Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cited from: userwww.sfsu.edu/rkbach/contextualism.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. Brendel, E.: 2003, ‘Was Kontextualisten nicht wissen’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 51, 1015–1032.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, S.: 1999, ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons’, Philosophical Perspectives 13, 57–89.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S.: 2000, ‘Contextualist Solutions to Epistemological Problems: Skepticism, Gettier, and the Lottery’, in E. Sosa and J. Kim (eds.), Epistemology. An Anthology, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 517–530.Google Scholar
  5. Feldman, R.: 2004, ‘Comments on DeRose’s “Single Scoreboard Semantics”’, Philosophical Studies, 119, 23–33.Google Scholar
  6. DeRose, K.: 2004, ‘Single Scoreboard Semantics’, Philosophical Studies, 119, 1–21.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D.: 1979, ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 8, 339–359.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D.: 1996, ‘Elusive Knowledge’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74, 549–567. Reprint 2000 in E. Sosa and J. Kim (eds.), Epistemology. An Anthology, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 503–516.Google Scholar
  9. Nichols, S., S. Stich, and J. Weinberg: 2003, ‘Metaskepticism: Meditations in Ethno-Epistemology’, in S. Luper (ed.), The Skeptics. Contemporary Essays, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate Epistemology and Mind Series.Google Scholar
  10. Stanley, J.: 2004, “On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism”, Philosophical Studies 119, 119–146.Google Scholar
  11. Williams, M.: 2000, ‘Is Contextualism Statable?’, Philosophical Issues 10, Skepticism, ed. E. Sosa and E. Villanueva, 80–85.Google Scholar
  12. Williamson, T.: forthcoming, ‘Knowledge and Scepticism’, in F. Jackson and M. Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Analytic Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Verena Gottschling
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations