Epistemological contextualism holds that the truth-conditions of knowledge-attributing sentences depend on the contexts in which they are uttered. While Contextualists have presented solutions of the skeptical paradox with reference to this dependence, they are confronted with various criticisms. In this paper, I examine DeRose's solution of skepticism, and then elucidate why it fails to do justice to the persuasiveness of skeptical argument. Finally, as an alternative resolution of radical skepticism, I suggest the position of “radical contextualism” that claims not only standards of knowledge but of epistemic distinction (justification) depend on the context, and illustrate the justification model of radical contextualism in contrast with that of radical skepticism.