Skepticism and Contextualism

نویسنده

  • Michael Blome-Tillmann
چکیده

Has Tom spoken truly? Surely, Jones’s epistemic position seems good enough for satisfying the predicate ‘knows that the animals in the pen are zebras’ (henceforth ‘knows Z’): Jones has visual experiences of a black and white striped horse-like animal, she can discriminate reliably between zebras and antelopes, she has read the sign on the pen that reads ‘Zebra Pen’, etc. Thus, Tom’s utterance of (1) seems to be a paradigm case of a true ‘knowledge’ attribution. Next, imagine a couple, Bill and Kate, walking along. Bill, a would-be postmodernist artist, gives details of his latest ideas: he envisions himself painting mules with white stripes to look like zebras, putting them in the zebra pen of a zoo and thereby fooling visitors. Our couple randomly considers Jones, and Kate claims, at the same time as Tom is asserting (1):

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Tim Sundell “contextualism and the Semantic Strategy in Epistemology”

Contextualism in epistemology is the view that on different occasions of utterance, the English verb know expresses different propositional attitudes—attitudes that vary in the required degree or kind of justification. For terminological convenience, I will distinguish between two contextualist theses. First, there is what Iʼll call linguistic contextualism (LC). By linguistic contextualism, I ...

متن کامل

Contextualism, Skepticism and Objectivity

In this paper, I try to make sense of the idea that true knowledge attributions characterize something that is more valuable than true belief and that survives even if, as Contextualism implies, contextual changes make it no longer identifiable by a knowledge attribution. I begin by sketching a familiar, pragmatic picture of assertion that helps us to understand and predict how the words “S kno...

متن کامل

Skepticism, Contextualism, and Discrimination”

The skeptic says that “knowledge” is an absolute term, whereas the contextualist says that ‘knowledge” is a relationally absolute term. Which is the better hypothesis about “knowledge”? And what implications do these hypotheses about “knowledge” have for knowledge? I argue that the skeptic has the better hypothesis about “knowledge”, but that both hypotheses about “knowledge” have deeply anti-s...

متن کامل

On “ from Contextualism to Contrastivism ”

Jonathan Schaffer is sympathetic to the contextualist approach to epistemology, broadly construed, but thinks that it hasn’t got the account of the verb “knows” quite right. Contextualists are on to something, but their view needs to be reformulated to give a correct account of the way we talk about knowledge, and (he argues) the reformulated view can do a better job of developing and defending...

متن کامل

Technology Classification Framework for E-Learning Purposes from a Knowledge Management Perspective

Often there is skepticism whether there is an overestimation of the capabilities that the integration of Information Technology (IT) offers in learning. The fact that learning is contextual means that technology has to support this contextualism of the phenomenon. Many researchers claim that e-learning is just a waste of time as, the effectiveness and the performance of the effort undertaken is...

متن کامل

Contextualism and Conceptual Disambiguation

I distinguish between Old Contextualism, New Contextualism, and the Multiple Concepts Theory. I argue that Old Contextualism cannot handle the following three problems: (i) the disquotational paradox, (ii) upward pressure resistance, (iii) inability to avoid the acceptance of skeptical conclusions. New Contextualism, in contrast, can avoid these problems. However, since New Contextualism appear...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2014