Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T07:17:15.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ON THE KNOWABILITY OF EPISTEMIC CONTEXTUALISM: A REPLY TO M. MONTMINY AND W. SKOLITS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2015

Wolfgang Freitag
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been frequently suggested that epistemic contextualists violate the knowledge norm of assertion; by its own lights contextualism cannot be known and hence not be knowingly stated. I have defended contextualists against this objection by showing that it rests on a misunderstanding of their commitments (Freitag 2011, 2012, 2013b). In M. Montminy's and W. Skolits' recent contribution to this journal (2014), their criticism of my solution forms the background against which the authors develop their own. The present reply ventures to demonstrate that their objections are ineffective, since they rest on a confusion of two different ways in which contextualism is unknowable. The precise nature of the original problem will be clarified and my solution briefly restated.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 335 - 342
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashfield, M. D. 2013. ‘Against the Minimalistic Reading of Epistemic Contextualism: A Reply to Wolfgang Freitag.’ Acta Analytica, 28: 111–25.Google Scholar
Baumann, P. 2008. ‘Contextualism and the Factivity Problem.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 76: 580–602.Google Scholar
Baumann, P. 2010. ‘Factivity and Contextualism.’ Analysis, 70: 82–9.Google Scholar
Brendel, E. 2003. ‘Was Kontextualisten Nicht Wissen.’ Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 51: 1015–32.Google Scholar
Brendel, E. 2005. ‘Why Contextualists Cannot Know They are Right: Self-Refuting Implications of Contextualism.’ Acta Analytica, 20: 38–55.Google Scholar
Brendel, E. 2007. ‘Kontextualismus oder Invariantismus? Zur Semantik epistemischer Aussagen.’ In Rami, A. and Wansing, H. (eds), Referenz und Realität, pp. 11–37. Paderborn: Mentis.Google Scholar
Brendel, E. 2009. ‘Contextualism, Relativism, and Factivity: Analyzing “Knowledge” after the New Linguistic Turn in Epistemology.’ In Leitgeb, H. and Hieke, A. (eds), Reduction and Elimination in Philosophy and the Sciences, pp. 403–16. Frankfurt a. M.: Ontos Press.Google Scholar
Brueckner, A. and Buford, C. T. 2009. ‘Contextualism, SSI and the Factivity Problem.’ Analysis, 69: 431–8.Google Scholar
Dinges, A. 2014. ‘Epistemic Contextualism can be Stated Properly.’ Synthese, 191: 3541–56.Google Scholar
Freitag, W. 2011. ‘Epistemic Contextualism and the Knowability Problem.’ Acta Analytica, 26: 273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitag, W. 2012. ‘Epistemic Variantism and the Factivity Problem.’ In Jäger, C. and Löffler, W. (eds), Epistemology: Contexts, Values, Disagreement, pp. 81–94. Frankfurt a. M.: Ontos Press.Google Scholar
Freitag, W. 2013a. I Know: Modal Epistemology and Scepticism. Münster: Mentis.Google Scholar
Freitag, W. 2013b. ‘In Defence of a Minimal Conception of Epistemic Contextualism: A Reply to M. D. Ashfield's Response.’ Acta Analytica, 28: 127–37.Google Scholar
Jäger, C. 2012. ‘Contextualism and the Knowledge Norm of Assertion.’ Analysis, 72: 491–8.Google Scholar
Montminy, M. and Skolits, W. 2014. ‘Defending the Coherence of Contextualism.’ Episteme, 11: 319–33.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2001. ‘Comments on Michael Williams’ “Contextualism, Externalism and Epistemic Standards”.' Philosophical Studies, 103: 25–33.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2005. ‘Contextualism and Scepticism: Even-Handedness, Factivity and Surreptitiously Raising Standards.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 236–62.Google Scholar