Shifting Targets and Disagreements

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92 (4):725-742 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Many have rejected contextualism about ?knows? because the view runs into trouble with intra- and inter-contextual disagreement reports. My aim in this paper is to show that this is a mistake. First, I outline four desiderata for a contextualist solution to the problem. Second, I argue that two extant solutions to the problem fail to satisfy the desiderata. Third, I develop an alternative solution which satisfies the four desiderata. The basic idea, put roughly, is that ?knowledge? ascriptions serve the function of recommending good informants, and disagreement over ?knowledge? ascriptions is a matter of conflicting recommendations. The upshot is that intra- and inter-contextual disagreement reports provide little?if any?reason to reject contextualism
Categories
Reprint years
2014
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MCKSTA-3
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-01-28
Latest version: 2 (2014-05-15)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Common Ground.Stalnaker, Robert

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-01-28

Total views
204 ( #13,179 of 38,105 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #26,678 of 38,105 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.