Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Contextual shifts and gradable knowledge

Stephens, Andreas LU orcid (2023) In Logos & Episteme: an international journal of epistemiology 14(3). p.323-337
Abstract
Epistemological contextualism states that propositions about knowledge, expressed in sentences like “S knows that P,” are context-sensitive. Schaffer (2005) examines whether one of Lewis’ (1996), Cohen’s (1988) and DeRose’s (1995) influential contextualist accounts is preferable to the others. According to Schaffer, Lewis’ theory of relevant alternatives succeeds as a linguistic basis for contextualism and as an explanation of what the parameter that shifts with context is, while Cohen’s theory of thresholds and DeRose’s theory of standards fail. This paper argues that Schaffer’s analysis is unsatisfactory since it fails to show that thresholds and standards cannot cope with skepticism, as it is ultimately the conversation participants who... (More)
Epistemological contextualism states that propositions about knowledge, expressed in sentences like “S knows that P,” are context-sensitive. Schaffer (2005) examines whether one of Lewis’ (1996), Cohen’s (1988) and DeRose’s (1995) influential contextualist accounts is preferable to the others. According to Schaffer, Lewis’ theory of relevant alternatives succeeds as a linguistic basis for contextualism and as an explanation of what the parameter that shifts with context is, while Cohen’s theory of thresholds and DeRose’s theory of standards fail. This paper argues that Schaffer’s analysis is unsatisfactory since it fails to show that thresholds and standards cannot cope with skepticism, as it is ultimately the conversation participants who control how the conversation plays out. Moreover, Schaffer fails to show that gradability is of no importance in inquiries. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
knowledge, contextualism, Schaffer, thresholds, standards, alternatives, gradability, gradualism
in
Logos & Episteme: an international journal of epistemiology
volume
14
issue
3
pages
15 pages
publisher
Gheorghe Zane Institute for Economic and Social Research, Romanian Academy, Iasi Branch
external identifiers
  • scopus:85176112209
ISSN
2069-0533
DOI
10.5840/logos-episteme202314324
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
cc6f4f2d-763f-4870-a5c0-cf065b8a5f32
date added to LUP
2023-08-10 15:36:46
date last changed
2023-12-30 04:05:37
@article{cc6f4f2d-763f-4870-a5c0-cf065b8a5f32,
  abstract     = {{Epistemological contextualism states that propositions about knowledge, expressed in sentences like “S knows that P,” are context-sensitive. Schaffer (2005) examines whether one of Lewis’ (1996), Cohen’s (1988) and DeRose’s (1995) influential contextualist accounts is preferable to the others. According to Schaffer, Lewis’ theory of relevant alternatives succeeds as a linguistic basis for contextualism and as an explanation of what the parameter that shifts with context is, while Cohen’s theory of thresholds and DeRose’s theory of standards fail. This paper argues that Schaffer’s analysis is unsatisfactory since it fails to show that thresholds and standards cannot cope with skepticism, as it is ultimately the conversation participants who control how the conversation plays out. Moreover, Schaffer fails to show that gradability is of no importance in inquiries.}},
  author       = {{Stephens, Andreas}},
  issn         = {{2069-0533}},
  keywords     = {{knowledge; contextualism; Schaffer; thresholds; standards; alternatives; gradability; gradualism}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{323--337}},
  publisher    = {{Gheorghe Zane Institute for Economic and Social Research, Romanian Academy, Iasi Branch}},
  series       = {{Logos & Episteme: an international journal of epistemiology}},
  title        = {{Contextual shifts and gradable knowledge}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/logos-episteme202314324}},
  doi          = {{10.5840/logos-episteme202314324}},
  volume       = {{14}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}