Premium
CONTEXTUALISM AND WARRANTED ASSERTION
Author(s) -
STONE JIM
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
pacific philosophical quarterly
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.914
H-Index - 32
eISSN - 1468-0114
pISSN - 0279-0750
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2007.00282.x
Subject(s) - assertion , contextualism , argument (complex analysis) , epistemology , context (archaeology) , nothing , variety (cybernetics) , sort , descriptive knowledge , philosophy , computer science , linguistics , artificial intelligence , history , interpretation (philosophy) , medicine , information retrieval , programming language , archaeology
Contextualists offer “high‐low standards” practical cases to show that a variety of knowledge standards are in play in different ordinary contexts. These cases show nothing of the sort, I maintain. However Keith DeRose gives an ingenious argument that standards for knowledge do go up in high‐stakes cases. According to the knowledge account of assertion (Kn), only knowledge warrants assertion. Kn combined with the context sensitivity of assertability yields contextualism about knowledge. But is Kn correct? I offer a rival account of warranted assertion and argue that it beats Kn as a response to the “knowledge” version of Moore's Paradox.