Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:53:13.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Contextualism, Unarticulated Constituents and Hidden Variables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2015

AHMAD REZA HEMMATI MOGHADDAM
AHMAD REZA HEMMATI MOGHADDAM*
Affiliation:
Islamic Azad University (Science and Research Branch), Tehran, Iran Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), Tehran, Iran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Epistemic contextualism was devised mainly to provide a solution to the problem of skepticism based on a thesis about the truth conditions of knowledge attributing sentences. In this paper, I’ll examine two possible semantic bases of epistemic contextualism i.e., (i) the epistemic standard is an unarticulated constituent, (ii) the epistemic standard is a hidden variable. After showing that the unarticulated constituent thesis is incompatible with epistemic contextualism, I’ll argue that the hidden variable account remains unconvincing. My aim in this paper is to show that questions remain that must be answered before epistemic contextualism can claim success in the project of resolving skepticism.

Le contextualisme épistémique fut conçu pour offrir une solution au problème du scepticisme à partir d’une thèse sur les conditions de vérité des attributions de connaissance. J’examinerai, dans cet article, deux bases sémantiques possibles du contextualisme épistémique : (i) la norme épistémique est un constituant inarticulé; (ii) la norme épistémique est une variable cachée. Je soutiens que la thèse du constituant inarticulé est incompatible avec le contextualisme épistémique, et que la thèse de la variable cachée reste peu convaincante. L'objectif de cet article est de montrer que plusieurs questions demeurent et doivent être résolues avant que le contextualisme épistémique puisse prétendre trouver une solution au problème du scepticisme.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 225 - 246
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2015 

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.)

References

Bach, Kent 2005 The Emperor's New 'Knows' In Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (Eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy, Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth (51–89). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Tim 2005 “Classic Invariantism, Relevance, and Warranted Assertability Manœuvers.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 55 (219): 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, Emma 2004 Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Jessica 2006 “Contextualism and Warranted Assertibility Manoeuvres.” Philosophical Studies, 130: 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelan, Herman, and Lepore, Ernest 2005 Insensitive semantics: A defence of minimalism and speech act pluralism. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stewart 1988 “How to be a Fallibilist.” Philosophical Perspectives 2, 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stewart 1999 “Contextualism, skepticism, and the structure of reasons.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13, 57–89.Google Scholar
DeRose, Keith 1992 “Contextualism and knowledge attributions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, Keith 2006 “‘Bamboozled by Our Own Words’”: Semantic Blindness and Some Arguments Against Contextualism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73 (2), 316–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, John 2004 Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kompa, Nikola 2002 “The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions.” Grazer Philosophische Studien, 64, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kompa, Nikola 2005 “The semantics of knowledge attribution.” Acta Analytica, 20, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, John 2005 “The assessment sensitivity of knowledge attributions. In Gendler, Szabó and Hawthorne, John (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (197–233). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François 2002 “Unarticulated constituents.” Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 299–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François 2005 Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2001 “The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions”, Noûs, 35 (4): 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Jonathan 2004 “From contextualism to contrastivism.” Philosophical Studies, 119, 73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen 1996 “Contextualist solutions to skepticism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 96, 317–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott 2002 Beyond rigidity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soames, Scott 2008 The gap between meaning and assertion: Why what we literally say often differs from what our words literally mean. Philosophical Papers Vol. 1, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason 2004 “On the linguistic basis for contextualism.” Philosophical Studies, 119, 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stine, Gail C. 1976 “Skepticism, Relevant Alternatives, and Deductive Closure”. Philosophical Studies, 29: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, Peter 1975 Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism.Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy 2005 “Contextualism, subject-sensitive invariantism, and knowledge of knowledge.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar