CONTEXTUALISM

Contexualism

Contextualism

Introduction

Keith DeRose has argued extensively for contextualism about the word 'knows': that the standards for what counts as knowledge are determined by the context in which the knowledge ascription is made. But DeRose does not hold that the context-sensitivity of 'knows' means that both parties to an apparent dispute about knowledge can be right. Some contextually sensitive terms, such as 'I', can take on different semantic values in the course of a single exchange, so that one person's utterance of “I am sitting” and another's utterance of “I am not sitting” can both be true. DeRose (2004), however, argues that the standards for knowledge never vary within a single exchange in a way that could make true one person's utterance of “S knows that p” and another's utterance of “S doesn't know that p.” In fact, DeRose argues that in such exchanges it may be that neither party's utterance is true; “S knows that p” falls into a truth-value gap. This essay explores DeRose's gap view and argues that on his view truth-value gaps must be fairly widespread.

DeRose uses two different kinds of case to argue for contextualism about knowledge. In one kind of case, the standard for knowledge is raised when a skeptical possibility is mentioned and acknowledged. When I first said “I know that there is a zebra in that cage,” I spoke truly; after the possibility that it might be a painted mule was brought up and acknowledged, I can no longer truly say “I know.” (See especially DeRose 1995.) Another kind of case brings in the practical costs of false belief. If nothing much rides on whether I get my paycheck deposited before Monday, I can truly say “I know that the bank is open Saturday” because I saw that it was open three Saturdays ago. If depositing my paycheck is vitally important, I should consider the possibility that the bank has changed its hours, and I can truly say “I don't know that the bank is open Saturday.” (See especially DeRose 1992.)

In the painted mule case the standards for knowledge are determined by which possibilities are acknowledged. In a context in which a skeptical possibility has not been acknowledged, knowledge ascriptions do not have to meet skeptical standards; once the possibility has been acknowledged they do. In the Bank Cases, the standards for knowledge could be determined either by which possibilities are acknowledged or by the practical costs of false belief. When, in the high-stakes case, I say “I don't know that the bank is open Saturday,” is my negative knowledge ascription made true by the high stakes or by my acknowledgment of the possibility that the bank might have changed its hours? In recent writings DeRose takes the position that the truth of the knowledge ascription is determined by the standards that the speaker chooses, even if those standards are not appropriate given the practical stakes: “If [speakers] opt for unreasonable standards, I'm inclined to think the truth conditions of their claim ...