Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-c75p9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-20T11:20:27.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFENDING THE COHERENCE OF CONTEXTUALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

Martin Montminy  and
Wes Skolits
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to a popular objection against epistemic contextualism, contextualists who endorse the factivity of knowledge, the principle of epistemic closure and the knowledge norm of assertion cannot coherently defend their theory without abandoning their response to skepticism. After examining and criticizing three responses to this objection, we offer our own solution. First, we question the assumption that contextualists ought to be interpreted as asserting the content of their theory. Second, we argue that contextualists need not hold that high epistemic standards govern contexts in which they defend their theory.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 319 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ashfield, M.D. 2013. ‘Against the Minimalistic Reading of Epistemic Contextualism: A reply to Wolfgang Freitag.’ Acta Analytica, 28: 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, P. 2008. ‘Contextualism and the Factivity Problem.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76: 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brendel, E. 2005. ‘Why Contextualists cannot know they are Right: Self-Refuting Implications of Contextualism.’ Acta Analytica, 20: 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, A. 2004. ‘The Elusive Virtues of Contextualism.’ Philosophical Studies, 118: 401–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, A. and Buford, C.T. 2009. ‘Contextualism, SSI and the Factivity Problem.’ Analysis, 69: 431–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 1999. ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 57–89.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem.’ Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 2009. The Case for Contextualism – Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, W. 2011. ‘Epistemic Contextualism and the Knowability Problem.’ Acta Analytica, 26: 273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, W. 2013. ‘A Defense of a Minimal Conception of Epistemic Contextualism: A reply to M.D. Ashfield's Response.’ Acta Analytica, 28: 127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazlett, A. 2010. ‘The Myth of Factive Verbs.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 497–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, C. 2012. ‘Contextualism and the Knowledge Norm of Assertion.’ Analysis, 72: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2005. ‘The Assessment Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ In Gendler, T.S. and Hawthorne, J. (eds), Oxford Studies in Epistemology, Vol. 1, pp. 197–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2009. Nonindexical Contextualism. Synthese, 166: 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montminy, M. 2008. ‘Can Contextualists Maintain Neutrality?’ Philosophers' Imprint, 8: 1–13.Google Scholar
Perry, J. 2001. Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. 2005. What shifts? thresholds, standards, or alternatives. In Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth, pp. 115–30. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1975. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson, K. (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, pp. 344–69. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2005. ‘Contextualism and Skepticism: Even-Handedness, Factivity, and Surreptitiously Raising Standards.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 236–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 1996. ‘Knowing and Asserting.’ Philosophical Review, 105: 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2001. ‘Comments on Michael Williams’ ‘Contextualism, externalism and epistemic standards’.’ Philosophical Studies, 103: 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar