DOCSLIB.ORG

Varieties of Contextualism: Standards and Descriptions1 Peter Baumann

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Varieties of Contextualism: Standards and Descriptions1 Peter Baumann Varieties of Contextualism: Standards and Descriptions1 Peter Baumann University of Aberdeen Summary Most contextualists agree that contexts differ with respect to relevant epis- temic standards. In this paper, I discuss the idea that the difference between more modest and stricter standards should be explained in terms of the close- ness or remoteness of relevant possible worlds. I argue that there are serious problems with this version of contextualism. In the second part of the paper, I argue for another form of contextualism that has little to do with standards and a lot with the well-known problem of the reference class. This paper also illustrates the fact that contextualism comes in many varieties. Only a couple of years ago, one could still easily make sense of general questions like “What do you think about epistemological contextualism?” In the meantime, so many different positions have been developed under the heading of “contextualism” that one is tempted to reply “It depends on what you mean by ‘contextualism’”. The variety has become so great that what is a serious objection to one form of contextualism might be even welcome support for another form of contextualism. Therefore, one should look at them one by one. One distinction is that between attributor and subject contextualism (cf. DeRose 1992, 918ff.; DeRose 1999, 190f.; Cohen 1987; Cohen 1988). In the meantime, it has become more popular to refer to the latter under the heading of “subject sensitive invariantism” (cf., e.g., Hawthorne 2004, ch.4) and to reserve the term “contextualism” for the former. I will go with this and take contextualism to be, broadly speaking, the following thesis: The truth-value of knowledge ascriptions of the 1 Published in Grazer Philosophische Studien 69, 2005, 229-245. 2 form “S knows that p” (and of related forms, of course) may (but need not) change with the speaker’s context (or the thinker’s context, for that matter). That is, it may change from speaker to speaker or between different contexts one and the same speaker finds herself in. To choose what is perhaps the most overused example in this context: In one (an ordinary) context it might be true to say or think that Jack knows that he has hands, but in another (sceptical) context it might not be true.2 But what is a context and how should we individuate contexts? Most contextualists seem to agree that contexts differ with respect to the relevant epistemic standards. In an ordinary context, epistemic standards are modest enough to allow for Jack to know that he has hands; in a sceptical context, however, standards are so strict that he won’t even know that. So, contexts are determined by the epistemic standards which count as the relevant ones in a given situation. It has become so much standard among contextualists to make contexts depend on epistemic standards that one could also speak of “standard”-contextualism in both senses of the word. In what follows I will take a look at a very prominent way to explain the difference between more modest and stricter standards, and will also say why I’m not happy with it. After that, I will try to make a constructive alternative proposal and defend another form of contextualism – a version that has little to do with standards and deserves much more attention than it has received so far. But first to standards. 2 I will take the stylistic freedom to switch from the metalinguistic level to the object-level whenever nothing hinges on it (cf. Lewis 1996, 567). 3 1. Standards According to authors like DeRose 1995 and others (for a slightly different view cf. Cohen 1998, 289-291 or Cohen 1999, 57-60) S’s knowledge that p requires that S can rule out or that S’s evidence eliminates alternate possibilities incompatible with the truth of “p”. To rule out a possibility, S needs to have evidence to the effect that the possibility in question is not actual. An uneliminated alternate possibility is one in which the subject would have exactly the same experience and evidence as they actually have (cf. Lewis 1996). For lack of a better term, I will say that S “eliminates” a possibility just in case S can either rule it out or S’s evidence eliminates it. Now, which alternate possibilities does the subject need to eliminate? Well, according to the philosophers just referred to, that depends on the epistemic standards relevant in the context of the attributor (speaker or thinker). According to laxer standards, Jack has to eliminate fewer and less remote possibilities in order to make “Jack knows that there is a hot dog in front of him” true. For instance, he just has to eliminate the possibility that there is nothing but a fake hot dog, made out of wax, in front of him. According to stricter standards, Jack has to eliminate more and more remote possibilities in order to make “Jack knows there is a hot dog in front of him” true. For instance, he would have to be able to eliminate the possibility that he is a Cartesian dreamer dreaming of some hot dog in front of him when there is none. Given stricter standards, Jack has to eliminate all possibilities he has to eliminate under laxer standards plus some more remote possibilities.3 Given laxer standards, it is true to say that Jack knows that there 3 It seems to be a (usually implicit) assumption of many contextualists that if S can eliminate a more remote possibility, then they can ipso facto eliminate a closer possibility. It is not obvious at all whether this is the case. Is it not conceivable that I can eliminate the possibility that I am a robot from 4 is a hot dog in front of him, at least if we assume that Jack can tell wax dogs from real hot dogs. However, given stricter standards, this might not be true. One of the main points of contextualism is that there is no single “true” standard or context. There is rather a plurality of contexts and in some it is true whereas in others it is false to say that S knows that p. In this sense – but in this harmless sense only – contextualism is a form of relativism. There are several general objections one could make against the version of contextualism just sketched (and I really only want to talk about the basic idea here and neglect finer differences between different versions of it). First, one might complain about a certain circularity in talk about “eliminating possibilities”. Suppose we claim that Jack knows there is a hot dog in front of him and that he can eliminate the possibility that it is only a wax imitation of a hot dog. If “eliminating the possibility that it is an imitation” means something like “knowing that it is no imitation”, then we are explaining “knowledge that there is a hot dog” in terms of “knowledge that it is not something else”. We are using the explanandum in the explanans and that is not good. What if “eliminating the possibility that q” does not mean or imply “knowing that not q”? Well, what could it mean then? Something like “having good reasons to believe that not q”? But even good reasons can be misleading. Jack has excellent reasons to believe there is no wax hot dog in front of him; however, unbeknownst to him, he is confronted with the latest high tech wax imitation of a hot dog and cannot tell it from a real hot dog. He therefore doesn’t know there is a hot dog in front of him. In other words, it seems we are facing a dilemma: Either we are reading “eliminating” in a sense that is too weak (e.g., as “having good reasons”); or we are reading it in a strong Mars (remote possibility) but that I cannot, for some reason, eliminate the possibility that I was born on the 5th of May rather than, say, the 4th of May at 11.45 pm? 5 enough sense but then the situation is even worse because we smuggle the explanandum into the explanans. Hence, one might conclude, all this stuff about “eliminating possibilities” does not lead anywhere (on “ruling out” see also Dretske 1970 and 1981b). The short reply to this objection is that we need not be interested at all in a reductive explanation of the concept of knowledge here (who has ever managed to reductively define concepts like that?). Apart from that, the objection only seems to work for the internalist interpretation of “eliminating a possibility” as “ruling it out”. The objection does not seem to work for, say, Lewis’ more externalist talk about “eliminating possibilities”. Hence, the objection above is, one might reply, without force. I think one can reformulate the objection but there is a much more serious problem with the contextualist story about eliminating possibilities. It concerns the underlying assumption that one can rank possibilities or possible worlds, for that matter, in terms of their remoteness from the actual world (cf., e.g., DeRose 1995, 36-37 and, as a background, Nozick 1981, 172ff. on sensitivity; cf. also, in general: Williams 2004). Our contextualist wants to say that in a stricter context the subject has to eliminate all the possibilities she has to eliminate in laxer contexts plus more remote possibilities. It is false to say “Jack knows that he has hands” if he can only eliminate the possibility that he is a brain in a vat but not the possibility that he has stumps instead of hands.4 If there is something wrong with the idea of a ranking of possible worlds in terms of remoteness, then this version of contextualism collapses, as we will see.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contextualism in Ethics 2019 Draft
    1(8) Contextualism in Ethics Gunnar Björnsson In more than one way, context matters in ethics. Most clearly, the moral status of an action might depend on context: although it is typically wrong not to keep a promise, some contexts make it permissible. More radically, proponents of moral particularism (see PARTICULARISM) have argued that a reason for an action in one context is not guaranteed to be even a defeasible reason in every context; whether it counts against an act that it breaks a promise or inflicts pain might depend on the particulars of the situation. In moral epistemology, Timmons (1999: Ch. 5) argues that whether a moral judgment is epistemically responsible depends both on the basic moral outlook of the moral judge and on whether the context of judgment is one of engaged moral thinking, or one of distanced, skeptical reflection. In the former, the judge’s basic moral outlook can serve to justify the judgment; not so in the latter (see EPISTEMOLOGY, MORAL). Our focus here, however, will be on forms of metaethical and, more precisely, semantic contextualism in moral discourse and moral thinking. According to these forms of contextualism (henceforth “metaethical contextualism,” or just “contextualism”), the meaning or truth‐conditions of a moral judgment or moral assertion depend not only on the properties of the act it concerns, but also on features of the context in which the judgment or assertion is made, such as the standards endorsed by the moral judge or the parties of the conversation. If metaethical contextualism is correct, it might be that when two people both judge that abortions must be banned, one judge might be correct whereas the other is mistaken, because they accept different fundamental norms.
    [Show full text]
  • Stenmark's "Rationality in Science, Religion, and Everyday Life: a Critical Evaluation of Four Models of Rationality" - Book Review Mark S
    Digital Commons @ George Fox University Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies College of Christian Studies 9-1999 Stenmark's "Rationality in Science, Religion, and Everyday Life: A Critical Evaluation of Four Models of Rationality" - Book Review Mark S. McLeod-Harrison George Fox University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/ccs Part of the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Previously published in Zygon, 1999, 34(3), pp. 533-535 http://www.zygonjournal.org/index.htm This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Christian Studies at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - College of Christian Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University. Reviews 533 Rationality in Science, Religion, and Everyday Life: A Critical Evaluation of Four Models of Rationality. By MIKAEL STENMARK. Notre Dame, Ind.: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1995. ix + 392 pages. $32.95 (hardcover). Mikael Stenmark does philosophers, theologians, scientists, and all others inter­ ested in the relationships among science, religion, and rationality an enormous amount of good in this book. As its title indicates, it presents four models of rationality and evaluates them from the scientific, religious, and everyday points of view. The chapters include an "Introduction," "The Nature of Rationality," "Sci­ ence and Formal Evidentialism," "The Scientific and the Evidentialist
    [Show full text]
  • Contextualist Responses to Skepticism
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Philosophy Theses Department of Philosophy 6-27-2007 Contextualist Responses to Skepticism Luanne Gutherie Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Gutherie, Luanne, "Contextualist Responses to Skepticism." Thesis, Georgia State University, 2007. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/philosophy_theses/22 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Philosophy at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONTEXTUALIST RESPONSES TO SKEPTICISM by LUANNE GUTHERIE Under the Direction of Stephen Jacobson ABSTRACT External world skeptics argue that we have no knowledge of the external world. Contextualist theories of knowledge attempt to address the skeptical problem by maintaining that arguments for skepticism are effective only in certain contexts in which the standards for knowledge are so high that we cannot reach them. In ordinary contexts, however, the standards for knowledge fall back down to reachable levels and we again are able to have knowledge of the external world. In order to address the objection that contextualists confuse the standards for knowledge with the standards for warranted assertion, Keith DeRose appeals to the knowledge account of warranted assertion to argue that if one is warranted in asserting p, one also knows p. A skeptic, however, can maintain a context-invariant view of the knowledge account of assertion, in which case such an account would not provide my help to contextualism.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Limits of Experimental Knowledge∗
    On the Limits of Experimental Knowledge∗ Peter W. Evans†1 and Karim P. Y. Th´ebault‡2 1School of Historical and Philosophical Inquiry, University of Queensland 2Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol June 4, 2020 Abstract To demarcate the limits of experimental knowledge we probe the limits of what might be called an experiment. By appeal to examples of scientific practice from astrophysics and analogue gravity, we demonstrate that the reli- ability of knowledge regarding certain phenomena gained from an experiment is not circumscribed by the manipulability or accessibility of the target phe- nomena. Rather, the limits of experimental knowledge are set by the extent to which strategies for what we call ‘inductive triangulation’ are available: that is, the validation of the mode of inductive reasoning involved in the source- target inference via appeal to one or more distinct and independent modes of inductive reasoning. When such strategies are able to partially mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be well supported by experiment. When such strategies are able to fully mitigate reasonable doubt, we can take a theory regarding the phenomena to be estab- lished by experiment. There are good reasons to expect the next generation of analogue experiments to provide genuine knowledge of unmanipulable and inaccessible phenomena such that the relevant theories can be understood as well supported. ∗Forthcoming in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, The Next Generation of Analogue Gravity Experiments, edited by Maxime Jacquet, Silke Weinfurtner and Friedrich K¨onig. †email: [email protected] ‡email: [email protected] 1 Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Epistemology and Experiment5 2.1 Reasonable and Unreasonable Doubt..................5 2.2 Three Forms of Unobservable Phenomena...............8 2.3 Experimental Evidence and External Validation...........
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • Skepticism, Contextualism, Externalism and Modality 173 to Which Our Epistemic Standards Must Converge
    SKEPTICISM,CONTEXTUALISM,EXTERNALISM AND MODALITY RON WILBURN University of Nevada, Las Vegas Abstract In this paper, I argue for the following claims. Contextualist strategies to tame or localize epistemic skepticism are hopeless if contextualist factors are con- strued internalistically. However, because efforts to contextualize externalism via subjunctive conditional analysis court circularity, it is only on an internal- istic interpretation that contextualist strategies can even be motivated. While these claims do not give us an argument for skepticism, they do give us an argu- ment that contextualism, as such, is not likely to provide us with an argument against skepticism. 1. Introduction Let’s take external world skepticism (henceforth, skepticism) to be the position that worldly knowledge is unattainable because various skeptical possibilities can- not be effectively countered, where such skeptical possibilities involve malign ge- nies, brains in vats and other sundry mechanisms for sabotaging our ordinary knowledge-acquisition procedures. Epistemic contextualism (henceforth, con- textualism), by contrast, is the position that standards of knowledge appropriately vary with assertional context. So understood, contextualism is often invoked as a strategy for circumventing skepticism by way of the following reasoning. Because counterpossibility relevance varies with one’s assertional situation, no single cri- terion for reasonable doubt can be reasonably mandated across all epistemic con- texts. Thus, even if apodictic requirements are appropriate to the distinctive context of skeptical inquiry, they do not exercise revisionary authority over the many other contexts of epistemic inquiry characteristic of everyday life and sci- ence. Skepticism, on this account, is a localized consequence of considerations that apply only within the particular and idiosyncratic context of philosophical inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Contextualism in Ethics 2019 Draft
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers 1(8) Contextualism in Ethics Gunnar Björnsson In more than one way, context matters in ethics. Most clearly, the moral status of an action might depend on context: although it is typically wrong not to keep a promise, some contexts make it permissible. More radically, proponents of moral particularism (see PARTICULARISM) have argued that a reason for an action in one context is not guaranteed to be even a defeasible reason in every context; whether it counts against an act that it breaks a promise or inflicts pain might depend on the particulars of the situation. In moral epistemology, Timmons (1999: Ch. 5) argues that whether a moral judgment is epistemically responsible depends both on the basic moral outlook of the moral judge and on whether the context of judgment is one of engaged moral thinking, or one of distanced, skeptical reflection. In the former, the judge’s basic moral outlook can serve to justify the judgment; not so in the latter (see EPISTEMOLOGY, MORAL). Our focus here, however, will be on forms of metaethical and, more precisely, semantic contextualism in moral discourse and moral thinking. According to these forms of contextualism (henceforth “metaethical contextualism,” or just “contextualism”), the meaning or truth‐conditions of a moral judgment or moral assertion depend not only on the properties of the act it concerns, but also on features of the context in which the judgment or assertion is made, such as the standards endorsed by the moral judge or the parties of the conversation.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemic Contextualism and Its Problems: a Philosophical Critique
    EPISTEMIC CONTEXTUALISM AND ITS PROBLEMS EPISTEMIC CONTEXTUALISM AND ITS PROBLEMS: A PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE By QILIN LI, B. A., M. A. A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University © Copyright by Qilin Li, October 2012 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (2012) (Philosophy) McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: Epistemic Contextualism and Its Problems: A Philosophical Critique AUTHOR: Qilin Li, B.A. (Peking University), M.A. (Peking University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Nicholas Griffin NUMBER OF PAGES: vi, 234 ii ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to argue that epistemic contextualism, which proposes that the word ‘know’ is a context-sensitive term, is seriously deficient and therefore indefensible. Since epistemic contextualists claim that their semantic theory of ‘know’ contributes not only to a linguistic model of knowledge ascription but also to a unified solution to some important puzzles in epistemology, I divide my thesis into two basic parts. In the first part (i.e., Chapters 2 and 3), I argue that the proponents of both binary and ternary accounts of the supposed context-sensitivity of ‘know’ fail to provide a reasonable linguistic model of knowledge ascription. My argument in Chapter 1 indicates that ‘know’ cannot be treated as a binary context-sensitive term that is similar to paradigmatic indexical terms or gradable adjectives. Chapter 2 takes contrastivism as a representation of the ternary account of the supposed context-sensitivity of ‘know’ and argues that this theory is in an even worse position because it even fails to capture the supposed phenomena of the context-sensitivity of knowledge ascription.
    [Show full text]
  • A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction by Fergus
    A Reliabilist Strategy for Solving the Problem of Induction By Fergus Dale Prien ORCID: 0000-0002-0940-9676 Dissertation Submitted in Total Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Research in Philosophy In the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies At the University of Melbourne Melbourne November 2019 Student Name: Fergus Prien Student Number: 588353 Acknowledgements There are a number of people and institutions that must be thanked for having made it possible for me to undertake this research project, and now complete it. I thank the Australian Government for supporting my research training at the University of Melbourne through the Research Training Program (RTP). I also thank the University of Melbourne and the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies in general for the opportunity to study at a great institution with learned academics who care about both the intellectual formation and general wellbeing of their students. More specifically, I would like to thank my primary supervisor, Howard Sankey, for the great multitude of hours that he has put in to both reviewing the various iterations of this dissertation (many far different from this one) and patiently helping me to think and write more critically. I have certainly grown in my scholarly ability and passion for philosophy under his supervision. I want to thank Brennan McDavid for her contribution to the supervision of my dissertation during her time at the University of Melbourne, as well as Greg Restall for agreeing to be my secondary supervisor quite late in this project. I also want to thank Brian Ellis, James Franklin, Callan Ledsham, Andrew Mullins, Xavier Symons, Brother Reginald Mary Chua, Fernando Jativa, and my fellow graduate philosophy students at the University of Melbourne who attended both or either of my seminar presentations – the feedback that I received from these people at specific points in my research certainly contributed to how I have formulated the thesis that I defend in this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Contextualism and the Problem of the External World I
    1 Contextualism and the Problem of the External World I believe that I have hands. But does my evidence support this belief? Skeptics think not. More generally, they think that our evidence can’t support our beliefs about the external world.1 This skeptical claim can be spelled out in different ways.2 But in this paper I shall not examine the differences among different versions of the claim. For I am interested in targeting the very idea that there is any such epistemic gap between my evidence and my beliefs about the external world. I shall argue that, in so far as this gap obtains, it is a gap of our own making: it is by entering into certain contexts of epistemic appraisal that we create the gap between the appraisee’s evidence and her beliefs about the external world. Such “contextualism” in epistemology may by now be all too familiar. But current versions of epistemological contextualism all suffer from a common problem: they all claim that the skeptic raises the standards for knowledge.3 I shall argue that the skeptic operates not by raising the standards for knowledge, but rather by disqualifying certain mental states from counting as evidence. Thereby the skeptic makes it impossible for us to attain even what, by ordinary standards, counts as knowledge of the external world. The skeptic is not making the uninteresting claim that we do not meet unusually stringent standards of knowledge. Rather, she is claiming that we do not meet ordinary 2 standards for knowledge.4 But she can make this claim truthfully only because she restricts what counts as our evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Legal History, Or, This Is Not Your Father's Contextualism, 56 Am
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2016 A Context for Legal History, or, This is Not Your Father’s Contextualism Justin Desautels-Stein University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Jurisprudence Commons, and the Legal History Commons Citation Information Justin Desautels-Stein, A Context for Legal History, or, This is Not Your Father's Contextualism, 56 Am. J. Legal Hist. 29 (2016), available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njv023. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Context for Legal History, or, This is Not Your Father’s Contextualism JUSTIN DESAUTELS-STEIN “When it comes to the state of their discipline,” Darrin McMahon suggests, “historians are often curiously obsessed with the future—as interested, it would seem, in what stands ahead as what lies behind.”1 But at least as Jo Guldi and David Armitage see it, the historian’s interest in the future isn’t really all that odd. As they have recently suggested, “[t]he discipline of history holds particular promise for looking both backwards and forwards.” “After all,” they assure, “historians are masters of change over time.”2 But even if we concede that historians are professionally warranted to have an interest in the future, McMahon’s point lingers on.
    [Show full text]
  • Cognitive Mobile Homes
    Cognitive Mobile Homes Daniel Greco June 13, 2013 Abstract While recent discussions of contextualism have mostly focused on other issues, some influential early statements of contextualism emphasized the possibility for contextualism to provide an alternative both to coherentism and to traditional ver- sions of foundationalism.1 In this essay, I'll pick up on this strand of contextualist thought and argue that contextualist versions of foundationalism promise to solve some problems that their non-contextualist cousins cannot. In particular, I'll argue that adopting contextualist versions of foundationalism can both (1) let us reconcile Bayesian accounts of belief updating with a version of the holist claim that all be- liefs are defeasible, and (2) let us defend some intuitively plausible epistemological internalist claims from otherwise powerful counterarguments. Introduction Epistemic contextualists often motivate their position by arguing that contextualism provides a satisfying resolution of certain skeptical paradoxes.2 In this essay, however, I will present one version of a very different strategy for motivating contextualism.3 The strategy I'll explore attempts to motivate contextualism by arguing that it provides an appealing way to chart a middle course between coherentism on the one hand, and traditional, non-contextualist versions of foundationalism on the other. I'll argue that 1See Williams (1977) and Annis (1978). In his recent book-length defense of contextualism, DeRose (2009) brings up the idea that contextualism has some special relevance to the debate between founda- tionalism and coherentism, only to set it aside (pp.21-22). I agree with DeRose that there is no entailment from contextualism to either foundationalism or coherentism.
    [Show full text]