Graduate studies at Western
Erkenntnis 61 (2-3):295 - 314 (2004)
|Abstract||Conversational contextualism states that the truth-conditions expressed by knowledge-attributing sentences vary relative to the context of utterance. This context is determined partly by different standards the person involved must meet in order to make the sentence true. I am concerned with the question of how these standards can be raised or lowered, and especially what happens to the standards and the conversational score when parties in a discussion push the conversational scores in different directions. None of the available options for an answer seems satisfying. I argue that this results from a misunderstanding of the characteristics of the situation at hand.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Keith DeRose (2004). Single Scoreboard Semantics. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):1-21.
Elke Brendel (2005). Why Contextualists Cannot Know They Are Right: Self-Refuting Implications of Contextualism. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 20 (2):38-55.
David R. Gibson (2000). Seizing the Moment: The Problem of Conversational Agency. Sociological Theory 18 (3):368-382.
Jason Stanley (2004). On the Linguistic Basis for Contextualism. Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):119-146.
Koji Yamashita, Hidekazu Kubota & Toyoaki Nishida (2005). Designing Conversational Agents: Effect of Conversational Form on Our Comprehension. [REVIEW] AI and Society 20 (2):125-137.
Keith DeRose (2009). The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 1. OUP Oxford.
Nikola Kompa (2005). The Semantics of Knowledge Attributions. Acta Analytica 20 (1):16-28.
Donald Nute (1980). Conversational Scorekeeping and Conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic 9 (2):153 - 166.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,437 of 739,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?