Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:50:41.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MINIMALISM AND THE LIMITS OF WARRANTED ASSERTABILITY MANEUVERS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2014

Blake Roeber
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contextualists and pragmatists agree that knowledge-denying sentences are contextually variable, in the sense that a knowledge-denying sentence might semantically express a false proposition in one context and a true proposition in another context, without any change in the properties traditionally viewed as necessary for knowledge. Minimalists deny both pragmatism and contextualism, and maintain that knowledge-denying sentences are not contextually variable. To defend their view from cases like DeRose and Stanley's high stakes bank case, minimalists like Patrick Rysiew, Jessica Brown, and Wayne Davis forward ‘warranted assertability maneuvers.’ The basic idea is that some knowledge-denying sentence seems contextually variable because we mistake what a speaker pragmatically conveys by uttering that sentence for what she literally says by uttering that sentence. In this paper, I raise problems for the warranted assertability maneuvers of Rysiew, Brown, and Davis, and then present a warranted assertability maneuver that should succeed if any warranted assertability maneuver will succeed. I then show how my warranted assertability maneuver fails, and how the problem with my warranted assertability maneuver generalizes to pragmatic responses in general. The upshot of my argument is that, in order to defend their view from cases like DeRose and Stanley's high stakes bank case, minimalists must prioritize the epistemological question whether the subjects in those cases know over linguistic questions about the pragmatics of various knowledge-denying sentences.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 245 - 260
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Bach, K. 2006. ‘The Top 10 Misconceptions about Implicature.’ In Birner, B. and Ward, G. (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning, pp. 21–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2006. ‘Contextualism and Warranted Assertability Manoeuvers.’ Philosophical Studies, 130: 407–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. and Gerken, M. 2012. ‘Knowledge Ascriptions: Their Semantics, Cognitive Bases, and Social Functions.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), New Essays on Knowledge Ascriptions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, S. 1988. ‘How to be a Fallibilist.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 2: 91–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. 1998. Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, W. 2007. ‘Knowledge Claims and Context: Loose Use.’ Philosophical Studies, 132: 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1992. ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 913–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1995. ‘Solving the Skeptical Problem.’ Philosophical Review, 104: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2002. ‘Evidence, Pragmatics and Justification.’ Philosophical Review, 111: 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganson, D. 2008. ‘Evidentialism and Pragmatic Constraints on Outright Belief.’ Philosophical Studies, 139: 441–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Stanley, J. 2008. ‘Knowledge and Action.’ Journal of Philosophy, 105: 571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, J.C. and Stanley, J. 2007. ‘Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Role of Semantic Content.’ In Stanley, J. (au.), Language in Context – Selected Essays, pp. 133–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Korta, K. and Perry, J. 2012. ‘Pragmatics.’ In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/pragmatics/.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1996. ‘Elusive Knowledge.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 74: 549–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. and Schroeder, M. 2014. ‘Belief, Credence and Pragmatic Encroachment.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 88: 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, P. 2001. ‘The Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.’ Noûs, 35: 477–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, M. 2012. ‘Stakes, Withholding, and Pragmatic Encroachment on Knowledge.’ Philosophical Studies, 160: 265–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weatherson, B. 2012. ‘Knowledge, Bets and Interests.’ In Brown, J. and Gerken, M. (eds), New Essays on Knowledge Ascriptions, pp. 75–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar