What Is Contextualism in Epistemology and How Does It Address Skepticism?

TL;DR

Contextualism in epistemology asserts that the meaning of 'know' is context-sensitive, allowing for valid knowledge claims in everyday situations while challenging the stark standards of skeptics. This approach helps demonstrate that ordinary knowledge is still attainable, even when faced with radical skepticism about our awareness, such as the possibility of dreaming.

Transcript

Hi, my name is Jeff Pin and I teach philosophy at Northern Illinois University. In this video, I'm going to talk with you about contextualism in epistemology. Earlier in our series, Jennifer Nagel explained the problem of skepticism. Here's a recap of one kind of argument for radical skepticism derived from a famous passage by Renee Deart. Do you k... Read More

Key Insights

• Contextualism in epistemology posits that the meaning of 'know' varies with context, affecting our understanding of knowledge claims.
• The skeptical argument questions our certainty about being awake, using vivid dreams as a counterpoint to challenge knowledge claims.
• Contextualists argue that in ordinary contexts, we can claim to know things without needing to meet skeptics' stringent standards.
• Gail Stein suggests that knowing involves ruling out relevant alternatives, which vary depending on the conversational context.
• Contextualism is more about the language used in knowledge claims than about knowledge itself, focusing on how 'know' functions in different settings.
• Contextualists believe that skeptics misuse language by applying their standards universally, which is not necessary in ordinary contexts.
• Stuart Cohen's example of a flight itinerary illustrates how practical circumstances influence whether one can claim to 'know' something.
• The contextualist view reduces the impact of skepticism by showing that ordinary knowledge claims are valid within their respective contexts.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the main idea behind epistemic contextualism?

Epistemic contextualism is the philosophical view that the term 'know' is context-sensitive, meaning its meaning and applicability can change depending on the context in which it is used. This idea suggests that what counts as knowledge in one situation may not count in another, thus allowing for different standards of knowledge in different contexts.

Q: How does contextualism address the problem of skepticism?

Contextualism addresses skepticism by arguing that the standards for claiming knowledge are not fixed but vary with context. In ordinary contexts, we can assert knowledge without meeting the high standards set by skeptics. By understanding 'know' as context-sensitive, contextualism shows that skepticism's demands are not necessary in everyday situations, thus reducing its impact.

Q: What role does language play in contextualism?

In contextualism, language plays a crucial role as it focuses on how the word 'know' functions differently in various contexts. Contextualists argue that understanding the context-sensitive nature of 'know' helps dissolve skeptical arguments by showing that knowledge claims are valid within their respective contexts, rather than adhering to universal standards.

Q: What example does Stuart Cohen use to illustrate contextualism?

Stuart Cohen uses the example of a flight itinerary to illustrate contextualism. He explains that in typical circumstances, one might claim to know the flight stops in Chicago based on the itinerary. However, if someone urgently needs to be in Chicago and questions the itinerary's accuracy, the context changes, and one may need additional confirmation to claim knowledge.

Q: How does Gail Stein's view contribute to contextualism?

Gail Stein contributes to contextualism by suggesting that knowing involves ruling out relevant alternatives. She explains that what counts as a relevant alternative can vary depending on the context. In ordinary situations, we might easily claim knowledge, but in skeptical contexts, we may need to address more challenging alternatives, like the possibility of dreaming.

Q: Why do contextualists argue that skepticism misuses language?

Contextualists argue that skepticism misuses language by applying its high standards universally, which is unnecessary in ordinary contexts. They claim that skeptics treat unusual conversational contexts as if they were general facts about knowledge itself, whereas contextualism shows that knowledge claims are context-dependent and valid within their respective settings.

Q: What is Keith D. Rose's perspective on skepticism and contextualism?

Keith D. Rose, a leading contextualist, argues that skepticism's absolute standards are unnecessary for ordinary knowledge claims. He suggests that once we understand the context-sensitive nature of 'know,' the distress caused by failing to meet skeptics' standards is minimal. Ordinary standards of knowledge are sufficient for everyday purposes, reducing skepticism's impact.

Q: How does contextualism change our understanding of knowledge claims?

Contextualism changes our understanding of knowledge claims by showing that they are not fixed but vary with context. This view suggests that what we can claim to know depends on the conversational context, allowing for different standards of knowledge in different situations. It emphasizes the role of language in shaping our understanding of knowledge.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• Contextualism in epistemology suggests that the term 'know' is context-sensitive, meaning its applicability varies depending on the situation. This perspective helps address radical skepticism by showing that we can claim knowledge in ordinary contexts without adhering to skeptics' strict standards.

• The skeptical argument that questions whether we are awake or dreaming challenges our claims to knowledge. Contextualists argue that this challenge only applies in contexts where such possibilities are relevant, not in everyday situations where we naturally claim to know we are awake.

• Contextualism focuses on language, positing that knowledge claims depend on conversational contexts. By recognizing this, contextualists assert that skepticism's impact is limited, as ordinary claims to knowledge remain valid without needing to meet absolute standards imposed by skeptics.