more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
While skepticism has drawn much of the attention of contextualists, support for contextualism should also - and perhaps primarily - be looked for in how 'knows' is utilised in non-philosophical conversation.
Gist of Idea
Contextualists worry about scepticism, but they should focus on the use of 'know' in ordinary speech
Source
Keith DeRose (The Case for Contextualism [2009], 1016)
Book Ref
DeRose,Keith: 'The Case for Contextualism' [OUP 2009], p.42
A Reaction
Contextualists say scepticism is just raising the standards absurdly high. I take it that the ordinary use of the word 'know' is obviously highly contextual, and so varied that I don't see how philosophers could 'regiment' it into invariant form.
| 19513 | A contextualist coherentist will say that how strongly a justification must cohere depends on context [DeRose] |
| 19514 | Classical invariantism combines fixed truth-conditions with variable assertability standards [DeRose] |
| 19515 | We can make contextualism more precise, by specifying the discrimination needed each time [DeRose] |
| 19510 | In some contexts there is little more to knowledge than true belief. [DeRose] |
| 19511 | If contextualism is about knowledge attribution, rather than knowledge, then it is philosophy of language [DeRose] |
| 19516 | Contextualists worry about scepticism, but they should focus on the use of 'know' in ordinary speech [DeRose] |