Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T22:23:23.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONTEXTUALISM AND THE AMBIGUITY THEORY OF ‘KNOWS’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

Mark Satta
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ambiguity theory of ‘knows’ is the view that ‘knows’ and its cognates have more than one sense, and that which sense of ‘knows’ is used in a knowledge ascription or denial determines, in part, the meaning (and as a result the truth conditions) of that knowledge ascription or denial. In this paper, I argue that the ambiguity theory of ‘knows’ ought to be taken seriously by those drawn to epistemic contextualism. In doing so I first argue that the ambiguity theory of ‘knows’ is a distinct view from epistemic contextualism. Second, I provide independent philosophical and linguistic considerations to motivate the ambiguity theory. Third, I argue that the ambiguity theory has the same central, generally agreed upon virtues ascribed to epistemic contextualism (namely, the ability to solve certain persistent epistemological problems relating to skeptical arguments and the ability to preserve the truth of most of our everyday, ordinary usages of ‘knows’ and its cognates). Finally, I provide an ambiguity-theory-friendly account of why contextualism may be initially appealing, and why this shouldn't dissuade us from taking the ambiguity theory seriously nonetheless.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 209 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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

Annis, D. 1978. ‘A Contextualist Theory of Epistemic Justification.’ American Philosophical Quarterly, 15(3): 213–19.Google Scholar
Borg, E. 2004. Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brogaard, B. 2008. ‘In Defence of a Perspectival Semantics for ‘Know’.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 86(3): 439–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2005. ‘Adapt or Die: The Death of Invariantism?’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55: 263–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2006. ‘Contextualism and Warranted Assertability Manoeuvres.’ Philosophical Studies, 130(3): 407–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2008. ‘Subject-Sensitive Invariantism and the Knowledge Norm for Practical Reasoning.’ Noûs, 42(2): 167–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 1988. ‘How to Be a Fallibilist.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 1999. ‘Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons.’ In Tomberlin, J. E. (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives, 13: Epistemology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. 2010. ‘Is Knowledge Contextual? Contextualism Defended.’ In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 55–62. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Conee, E. 2010. ‘Is Knowledge Contextual? Contextualism Contested.’ In Steup, M. and Sosa, E. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 47–55. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cruse, A. D. 1982. ‘On Lexical Ambiguity.’ Nottingham Linguistic Circular 11(2): 65–80.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 1992. ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(4): 913–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1999. ‘Contextualism: An Explanation and Defense.’ In Greco, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, pp. 187–204. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
DeRose, K. 2002. ‘Assertion, Knowledge, and Context.’ Philosophical Review, 111(2): 167–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 2004. ‘Single Scoreboard Semantics.’ Philosophical Studies, 119: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 2005. ‘The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism, and the New Invariantism.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219): 172–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 2009. The Case for Contextualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. 1984. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes: Volume II. Transl. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R. and Murdoch, D.. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1970. ‘Epistemic Operators.’ Journal of Philosophy, 67(24): 1007–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2002. ‘Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification.’ Philosophical Review, 111(1): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2012. ‘Arguing for Shifty Epistemology.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), Knowledge Ascriptions, pp. 55–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, F. 1986. A Cartesian Introduction to Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1993. ‘Vagueness's Puzzles, Polysemy's Vagaries.’ Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3): 223–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, J. 2008. ‘What's Wrong with Contextualism?’ Philosophical Quarterly, 56(232): 416–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. ‘Logic and Conversation.’ In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979. ‘Scorekeeping in a Language Game.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8: 339–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74(4): 549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 2009. ‘Semantic Minimalism and Nonindexical Contextualism.’ In Preyer, G. and Peter, G. (eds), Context-Sensitivity and Semantic Minimalism: New Essays on Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, J. 2007. ‘Nonindexical Contextualism.’ Synthese, 166(2): 231–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malcolm, N. 1952. ‘Knowledge and Belief.’ Mind, 61(242): 178–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizumoto, M. 2018. ‘Introduction.’ In M. Mizumoto, S. Stich and E. McCready (eds), Epistemology for the Rest of the World, pp. 1–11. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1959. ‘Proof of the External World.’ In Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and Unwin; New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Perry, J. 2001. Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pynn, G. 2015a. ‘Pragmatic Contextualism.’ Metaphilosophy, 46(1): 26–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pynn, G. 2015b. ‘Contextualism in Epistemology.’ In Oxford Handbooks Online. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ravin, Y. and Lecock, C. (eds). 2000. ‘Polysemy: An Overview.’ in Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, B. 2013. ‘Fallibilism, Epistemic Possibility, and Epistemic Agency.’ Philosophical Issues, 23: 40–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2001. ‘The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ Noûs, 35(4): 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2005. ‘Contesting Contextualism.’ Grazer Philosophische Studien, 69: 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2007. ‘Speaking of Knowing.’ Noûs, 41(4): 627–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2011. ‘Epistemic Contextualism.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/contextualism-epistemology/.Google Scholar
Satta, M. 2018a. ‘The Ambiguity Theory of ‘Knows’.’ Acta Analytica, 33(1): 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satta, M. 2018b. ‘A Linguistic Grounding for a Polysemy Theory of ‘Knows’.’ Philosophical Studies 175(5): 1163–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satta, M. 2018c. ‘Semantic Blindness and Error Theorizing for the Ambiguity Theory of ‘Knows’.’ Analysis, 78(2): 275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saul, J. 2015. Lying, Misleading, and What is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and in Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sennet, A. 2016. ‘Ambiguity.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/ambiguity/.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. 2014. Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2004. ‘On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism.’ Philosophical Studies, 119(1–2): 119–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steup, M. 2005. ‘Contextualism and Conceptual Disambiguation.’ Acta Analytica, 20: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. and Mizumoto, M. 2018. ‘Manifesto.’ In Mizumoto, M., Stich, S. and McCready, E. (eds), Epistemology for the Rest of the World, pp. vi–xv. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuggy, D. 1993. ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness.’ Cognitive Linguistics, 4(3): 273–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar