Does Contextualism Hinge on a Methodological Dispute?

Jie Gao, Mikkel Gerken, Stephen B Ryan

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingBook chapterResearchpeer-review

    Abstract

    This chapter provides an overview of some of the methodological debates surrounding contextualism and considers whether they are, in effect, based on an underlying methodological dispute. It considers the case-based motivations of contextualism and DeRose's "methodology of the straightforward". The chapter also considers the methodology that consists in modeling a contextualist semantics of "knows" on other context-sensitive linguistic phenomena. It explains the attempts to motivate contextualism by appeal to imagined conceptual genealogies or functional roles. The chapter discusses the challenges from experimental philosophy from a methodological perspective. It explores whether the debates over the case for contextualism are based on a methodological dispute. Epistemic contextualism is, roughly, the semantic thesis that the truth-conditional contribution of "knows" varies with variations in the context of utterance. The contextualism has since its earliest developments been surrounded by disputes of a methodological character.
    Original languageEnglish
    Title of host publicationThe Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism
    EditorsJonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
    PublisherRoutledge
    Publication date2017
    Pages81-93
    Chapter6
    ISBN (Print)9781138818392
    ISBN (Electronic)9781315745275
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2017
    SeriesRoutledge Handbooks in Philosophy

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Does Contextualism Hinge on a Methodological Dispute?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this