Contextualism without pragmatic encroachment

Analysis 71 (4):667-676 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In ‘Withdrawal and contextualism’, Jonathan Adler (2006) provides an argument which, if successful, undermines what contextualists take to be prime support for their view. Given the popularity of contextualist (and related) positions in epistemology, together with the fact that, thus far, no one has challenged Adler's argument, a critical assessment therefore presses. In this article, after briefly reviewing Adler's argument, I show that it fails. My reason for taking his argument to fail will then provide novel support for contextualism, one that does not rely on raising the pragmatic stakes

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,636

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-09-15

Downloads
169 (#140,032)

6 months
18 (#165,793)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Bradley Armour-Garb
State University of New York, Albany

Citations of this work

Why Double-Check?Elise Woodard - 2024 - Episteme 21 (2):644-667.
Why Double-Check?Elise Woodard - 2022 - Episteme:1-24.
Unzipping the Zetetic Turn.David Domínguez - 2023 - Synthese 202 (6):1-29.
Checking and the Argument from Inquiry.Wes Siscoe - 2022 - Acta Analytica 38 (1):1-10.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Elusive knowledge.David Lewis - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (4):549 – 567.
Contextualism and knowledge attributions.Keith DeRose - 1992 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52 (4):913-929.
Can we do without pragmatic encroachment.Brian Weatherson - 2005 - Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):417–443.
Withdrawal and contextualism.Jonathan E. Adler - 2006 - Analysis 66 (4):280–285.

View all 6 references / Add more references