Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-15T07:58:27.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SUBJECT-SENSITIVE INVARIANTISM, HIGH-STAKES/LOW-STAKES CASES, AND PRESUPPOSITION SUSPENSION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 October 2018

Michael Blome-tillmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is a familiar criticism of Subject-Sensitive Invariantism that the view makes incorrect predictions about cases in which the attributor of knowledge is in a high-stakes situation and the subject of the attribution in a low-stakes situation. In a recent paper in this journal, Brian Kim has argued that the mentioned type of case should be ignored, since the relevant knowledge ascriptions are inappropriate in virtue of violating an epistemic norm of presupposing. I show, pace Kim, that the mentioned utterances do not carry factivity presuppositions. To this end I discuss a phenomenon known as presupposition suspension, which is widely associated with the presuppositions of epistemic factives such as know that p or discover that p. I argue further that the problem of unknown presuppositions discussed by Kim can be circumvented by slightly amending the cases at hand. In particular, I demonstrate that factivity presuppositions are unobjectionable in problem cases in which the high-stakes ascriber knows the presuppositions at issue to be true.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 249 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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

Abbott, B. 2006. ‘Where Have Some of the Presuppositions Gone?’ In Birner, B. and Ward, G. (eds), Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning, pp. 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Abrusán, M. 2016. ‘Presupposition Cancellation: Explaining the ‘Soft-Hard’ Trigger Distinction.’ Natural Language Semantics, 24(2): 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2008. ‘The Knowledge Norm for Assertion.’ Philosophical Issues, 18(1): 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. 2010. ‘Knowledge and Assertion.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 81(3): 549–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 1992. ‘Contextualism and Knowledge Attributions.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52: 913–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeRose, K. 2005. ‘The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism, and the New Invariantism.’ Philosophical Quarterly, 55(219): 172–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2002. ‘Evidence, Pragmatics and Justification.’ Philosophical Review, 111(1): 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2007. ‘On Pragmatic Encroachment in Epistemology.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75: 558–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. and Peters, S. 1979. ‘Conventional Implicatures.’ In Oh, C.-K. and Dinneen, D. A. (eds), Syntax and Semantics 11, Presupposition, pp. 1–56. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kim, B. 2016. ‘In Defense of Subject-sensitive Invariantism.’ Episteme, 13(2): 233–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2007. ‘Norms of Assertion.’ Noûs, 41(4): 594–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. 2016. ‘Assertion and Expertise.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92(2): 509–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, J. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar