Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Psychological Context of Contextualism

In Jonathan J. Ichikawa (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Epistemic Contextualism. Routledge (2017)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Epistemic Evaluation and the Need for ‘Impure’ Epistemic Standards.Nikola Anna Kompa - 2021 - Synthese 199 (1-2):4673-4693.
    That knowledge ascriptions exhibit some form of sensitivity to context is uncontroversial. How best to account for the context-sensitivity at issue, however, is the topic of heated debates. A certain version of nonindexical contextualism seems to be a promising option. Even so, it is incumbent upon any contextualist account to explain in what way and to what extent the epistemic standard operative in a particular context of epistemic evaluation is affected by non-epistemic factors. In this paper, I investigate how non-epistemic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Knowledge and Non-Traditional Factors: Prospects for Doxastic Accounts.Alexander Dinges - 2020 - Synthese 198 (9):8267-8288.
    Knowledge ascriptions depend on so-called non-traditional factors. For instance, we become less inclined to ascribe knowledge when it’s important to be right, or once we are reminded of possible sources of error. A number of potential explanations of this data have been proposed in the literature. They include revisionary semantic explanations based on epistemic contextualism and revisionary metaphysical explanations based on anti-intellectualism. Classical invariantists reject such revisionary proposals and hence face the challenge to provide an alternative account. The most prominent (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Knowledge, Belief, and Egocentric Bias.Paul Dimmock - 2019 - Synthese 196 (8):3409-3432.
    Changes in conversationally salient error possibilities, and/or changes in stakes, appear to generate shifts in our judgments regarding the correct application of ‘know’. One prominent response to these shifts is to argue that they arise due to shifts in belief and do not pose a problem for traditional semantic or metaphysical accounts of knowledge. Such doxastic proposals face familiar difficulties with cases where knowledge is ascribed to subjects in different practical or conversational situations from the speaker. Jennifer Nagel has recently (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations