Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Scepticism and Contextualism. Three Objections and Three Replies

digital Scepticism and Contextualism.
Three Objections and Three Replies
Article
journal RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA
issue RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEO-SCOLASTICA - 2017 - 4. Il pensiero filosofico e teologico in Bonaventura da Bagnoregio
title Scepticism and Contextualism. Three Objections and Three Replies
authors
publisher Vita e Pensiero
format Article | Pdf
online since 03-2018
doi http://filosofianeoscolastica.vitaepensiero.com/doi/10.26350/001050_000034
issn 00356247 (print) | 18277926 (digital)
Write a comment for this product
€ 6.00

Ebook format Pdf readable on these devices:

The contextualist anti-sceptical argument seems to be more compelling than many other anti-sceptical strategies, as the refusal of the closure principle preached by Dretske and Nozick or Moore’s common-sensical approach. Yet, it has been maintained that a better response to the sceptic can be expressed by following a neo-moorean approach. Here we defend the contextualist argument from three objections moved by Pritchard, a leading advocate of neo-mooreanism. The first objection claims that contextualism would be a «revisionist» linguistic thesis; the second that the contextualist argument «concessive» nature would lead to a sceptical conclusion; the third that the contextualist thesis that ‘know(s)’ is a context-sensitive term would be unnecessary since what the contextualist takes as a change in the truth-conditions of knowledge ascriptions might be better explained as a change in the assertability-conditions of those sentences. In the end, we will maintain that the three objections are ineffective.

keywords

Scepticism, Epistemic contextualism, Neo-mooreanism, Warranted Assertability Maneuvers, Knowledge ascriptions

Pinterest