Comments on: Contextualist Knowledge Norms http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/contextualist-knowledge-norms/ Jonathan Ichikawa's website Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:18:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Jonathan http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/contextualist-knowledge-norms/#comment-342 Jonathan Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:49:32 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=199#comment-342 It's a fair question, Carrie. And I don't mean to be totally ruling that option out. But it must be said that I see little appeal for it -- at least for using it in a broad enough class of cases to do the relevant work needed here. (I've no doubt that there can be some cases like this -- when the two subjects know different background facts, etc.) The 'shoulds' here just sound to me to be too closely connected to advice and all-things-considered normativity to be amenable to this move. But I'm definitely happy to listen to someone who wants to explain how this could work in a contextualist way. It’s a fair question, Carrie. And I don’t mean to be totally ruling that option out. But it must be said that I see little appeal for it — at least for using it in a broad enough class of cases to do the relevant work needed here. (I’ve no doubt that there can be some cases like this — when the two subjects know different background facts, etc.) The ’shoulds’ here just sound to me to be too closely connected to advice and all-things-considered normativity to be amenable to this move. But I’m definitely happy to listen to someone who wants to explain how this could work in a contextualist way.

]]> By: Carrie Jenkins http://jonathanichikawa.net/weblog/contextualist-knowledge-norms/#comment-311 Carrie Jenkins Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:47:04 +0000 http://jonathanichikawa.net/?p=199#comment-311 Your worry about (1): 'If somebody says “S should phi,” and somebody else says “S should not phi,” and they’re talking about the same S at the same time and using ‘phi’ to describe the same course of action, then we shouldn’t think they’re both right.' A worry about 'knows'-contextualism: 'If somebody says “S knows that p,” and somebody else says “S does not know that p,” and they’re talking about the same S at the same time and using ‘p’ to pick out the same proposition, then we shouldn’t think they’re both right.' The latter has a little intuitive pull, but is to be resisted. Why is the former different? Your worry about (1):
‘If somebody says “S should phi,” and somebody else says “S should not phi,” and they’re talking about the same S at the same time and using ‘phi’ to describe the same course of action, then we shouldn’t think they’re both right.’

A worry about ‘knows’-contextualism:
‘If somebody says “S knows that p,” and somebody else says “S does not know that p,” and they’re talking about the same S at the same time and using ‘p’ to pick out the same proposition, then we shouldn’t think they’re both right.’

The latter has a little intuitive pull, but is to be resisted. Why is the former different?

]]>