Overview

Epistemic contextualism is the view that the truth conditions of knowledge attributions (sentences like “S knows that P”) vary depending on the context in which the attribution is made.

Core Idea

The core idea is that “knows” is a context-sensitive term, like “tall” or “flat.” Whether someone counts as “knowing” something depends on the standards operative in the conversation (e.g., high stakes vs. low stakes).

Formal Definition

Contextualism holds that the semantic content of knowledge claims is indexical. The sentence “S knows P” expresses different propositions in different contexts of utterance, depending on the epistemic standards presupposed by the speaker.

Intuition

  • Low Stakes: You are at the zoo. You point to a zebra and say, “I know that’s a zebra.” This seems true.
  • High Stakes: A skeptic asks, “But can you prove it’s not a mule painted to look like a zebra?” Suddenly, the standard for “knowing” shoots up. In this context, you might admit, “Okay, I don’t know it’s not a painted mule.”
  • Contextualists say you were right both times: you “knew” by low standards, but didn’t “know” by high standards.

Examples

  • The Bank Case:
    • Case A: Keith says “I know the bank is open Saturday” because he was there two weeks ago. (Low stakes -> True).
    • Case B: Keith needs to deposit a check urgently or he will lose his house. He realizes banks change hours. Now, “I know the bank is open” seems false until he checks again. (High stakes -> False).
  • “Flat”: A road is “flat” for driving, but not “flat” under a microscope. “Knows” works the same way.

Common Misconceptions

  • Misconception: Contextualism is the same as Relativism.
    • Correction: Relativism says truth itself is relative. Contextualism says the meaning of the word “knows” shifts, but once the meaning is fixed by context, the truth is objective.
  • Misconception: The subject’s context matters.
    • Correction: For standard contextualism, it is the speaker’s context (the person attributing knowledge) that sets the standard, not necessarily the subject’s situation (though Subject-Sensitive Invariantism disagrees).
  • Invariantism: The view that the meaning of “knows” does not vary with context.
  • Skepticism: Contextualism is often used as a response to skepticism (we “know” in daily life, even if we don’t “know” in a philosophy seminar).
  • Subject-Sensitive Invariantism (SSI): The view that knowledge depends on the subject’s stakes, not the speaker’s context.

Applications

  • Responding to Skeptics: Allows us to accept skeptical arguments in high-standards contexts without giving up ordinary knowledge.
  • Linguistics: Part of the broader study of context-sensitivity in language.

Criticism and Limitations

  • Semantic Blindness: If “knows” changes meaning like “I” or “here,” why don’t we realize it? We often feel like we are contradicting our past selves, not just using a different standard.
  • Facticity: Knowledge is supposed to be about facts. If I “know” today but “don’t know” tomorrow just because the conversation changed, it feels like knowledge is too flimsy.

Further Reading

  • The Case for Contextualism by Keith DeRose
  • Knowledge in Context by Lewis Lewis
  • Contextualism in Philosophy by Patrick Rysiew